THE DISCOURSE OF RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN AN INTERCULTURAL
VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITY
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
the College of Education of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Dawn M. Bikowski
March 2008 2 This dissertation titled
THE DISCOURSE OF RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN AN INTERCULTURAL
VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITY
by
DAWN M. BIKOWSKI
has been approved for
the Department of Educational Studies
and the College of Education by
Teresa J. Franklin
Associate Professor of Educational Studies
Renée A. Middleton
Dean, College of Education 3 ABSTRACT
BIKOWSKI, DAWN, Ph.D., March 2008, Curriculum and Instruction: Instructional
Technology
THE DISCOURSE OF RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN AN INTERCULTURAL
VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITY (338 pp.)
Director of Dissertation: Teresa J. Franklin
The purpose of this study was to understand the nature of the discourse students
used in their relationships in an intercultural virtual learning community. The students
were undergraduates from the Global Leadership Center at Ohio University in the United
States and from an English Department in a university in Thailand. The study described
the discourse the students used in their relationships in their course computer-mediated
communication and examined how their discourse was similar or different according to
their cultural backgrounds and other factors. The study also explored how the students
used technology in their relationships.
Students from the course were chosen for this study based on their feeling a sense
of community in the course, their continued communication with each other past course completion, and observation data. Three teams were studied in-depth, with a total of seven American and six Thai students.
Questions for this study included:
1. What was the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in
an intercultural virtual learning community?
2. Did the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an
intercultural virtual learning community differ between students from 4 different cultures? and if so, how? What other factors in addition to culture
might have influenced the students’ discourse?
3. What strategies did the students engage in to use technology to form and
maintain relationships?
Discourse analysis was the primary research methodology used for this study and
was supplemented with interview and observation data. Following the guidelines outlined
by Herring (2004), concepts of intercultural virtual relationships and language
characterizing those concepts were identified in the literature. These concepts and
language characteristics provided a preliminary basis for the analysis of the students’
computer-mediated communication, using qualitative software for coding. A final coding
scheme emerged.
Analysis indicated that all students and teams demonstrated consideration in their
communication. The three main areas of consideration found were interest in teammate and culture, support for teammates, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. Different teams and different students conveyed consideration in a variety of ways.
The Thai and American students exhibited more similarities in their discourse than differences. Culture may have played a role in the differences, but many other potential influences were found. Strategies not previously discussed in the literature for forming relationships through technology are discussed, and teaching implications are given.
Approved: ______
Teresa J. Franklin
Associate Professor of Educational Studies 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Teresa Franklin. I could not have completed this
degree without her approachable manner, timely responses, encouragement, and useful
advice. I also would like to thank my committee member Dr. Greg Kessler for all of the
time and thought that he has put into this study. Dr. George Johanson has been very encouraging as well and has provided very useful recommendations. And Dr. David Bell has given me great insight into language and how it works. I have had a wonderful committee and am very appreciative of all their time.
I also could never have completed this study without all the support I have received from my husband, mother, and children. They have given me the time I needed and encouraged me through many years of study.
I also appreciate the kindness and openheartedness of the Thai students and faculty who I have worked with over the years, both in the U.S. and in Thailand. I have enjoyed myself greatly and learned so much from working together.
Finally, I am very appreciative of the support I have received from the Global
Leadership Center at Ohio University. The faculty, staff, and students of this program have inspired me and deserve my very special thanks. I thank them for welcoming me into their community and allowing me to share it with others.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT ...... 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 13
Background of Study ...... 13
Need for Research ...... 15
Purpose of the Study ...... 16
Research Questions ...... 16
Significance of the Study ...... 17
Scope of the Study ...... 17
Limitations of the Study...... 18
Definition of Terms...... 18
Organization of the Study ...... 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 22
History of Social Learning in Education ...... 22
Social Learning and Vygotsky ...... 22
Constructivism ...... 23
Distance Education and Learner-Centered Education ...... 25
Relationships and Community in Distance Education...... 28
Interactivity ...... 28
Social Presence Theory ...... 30
Transactional Presence and Distance Theories ...... 31 7
Virtual Learning Communities ...... 32
Relationships ...... 37
Intercultural Relationships ...... 40
Researching intercultural relationships...... 41
Intercultural relationships and Thais...... 44
Virtual Relationships ...... 48
Computer-Mediated Communication ...... 50
Definition and Research Interest ...... 50
Computer-Mediated Communication and Relationships ...... 53
Building Presence using Computer-Mediated Communication ...... 54
Computer-Mediated Communication and Language ...... 57
Research on Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication ...... 62
Discourse Analysis...... 66
Definitions...... 66
Theoretical Assumptions ...... 69
Methodologies...... 71
Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis ...... 72
Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis of Virtual Communities ...... 76
Review of the Literature using Discourse Analysis ...... 77
Discourse Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication in
Virtual Communities ...... 77
Discourse Analysis of Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication ...... 80 8
Discourse Analysis of Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication in a
Virtual Learning Community ...... 87
Chapter Summary ...... 87
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...... 89
Introduction ...... 89
Case Study Approach ...... 89
Description of the Case ...... 90
The Role of the Researcher and Ethical Considerations ...... 93
Pilot Studies ...... 95
Participants ...... 97
Participant Information ...... 101
Team One ...... 102
Team Two ...... 103
Team Three ...... 105
Teaching Assistant ...... 106
Data Collection and Analysis...... 106
Discourse Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication ...... 106
Observations ...... 109
Skype Video Conference Footage ...... 110
Interviews ...... 110
Trustworthiness ...... 111
Credibility ...... 112
Transferability ...... 113 9
Dependability and Confirmability ...... 114
Chapter Summary ...... 115
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ...... 116
Participation Analysis ...... 116
Number of Postings...... 117
Frequency and Pacing of Postings ...... 122
Team Interactivity ...... 128
Social Postings ...... 130
Posting of Social Pictures ...... 136
Participation Summary...... 140
The Nature of the Discourse used in Intercultural Virtual Relationships ...... 142
Team One: Consideration ...... 144
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture ...... 145
Showing Support for Teammates ...... 157
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind ...... 167
Consideration Summary Team One ...... 168
Team Two: Consideration ...... 170
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture ...... 171
Showing Support for Teammates ...... 184
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind ...... 193
Consideration Summary Team Two ...... 194
Team Three: Consideration...... 196
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture ...... 197 10
Showing Support for Teammates ...... 208
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind ...... 219
Consideration Summary Team Three ...... 219
Consideration Summary of Teams One, Two, and Three ...... 221
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture ...... 221
Showing Support for Teammates ...... 224
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind ...... 227
Chapter Summary ...... 228
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...... 232
Research Question One: The Nature of the Discourse ...... 235
Consideration as Expressed Differently in Different Groups ...... 236
Findings not Discussed in Previous Research ...... 238
Findings that Differ from Previous Research ...... 240
Findings Similar to Previous Research ...... 242
Research Question Two: Comparing Students’ Discourse ...... 243
Differences in Thai and American Student Discourse ...... 244
Reasons for the Similarity in Discourse between Thai and American Students ..... 247
Factors in addition to Culture Potentially Affecting Discourse ...... 248
Research Question Three: Strategies used to Form Relationships
through Technology ...... 252
Social Presence and Transactional Presence Theories ...... 257
Limitations ...... 259
Teaching Implications ...... 260 11
Recommendations for Future Research ...... 262
Conclusion ...... 269
REFERENCES ...... 272
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONALIZING RELATIONSHIP BUILDING ...... 298
APPENDIX B: OPERATIONALIZING INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING ... 305
APPENDIX C: OPERATIONALIZING RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN
A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 307
APPENDIX D: CLASSROOM COMMUNITY SCALE...... 309
APPENDIX E: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BOARD APPROVAL ...... 310
APPENDIX F: PRELIMINARY CODING SCHEME ...... 312
APPENDIX G: FINAL CODING SCHEME ...... 314
APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ...... 315 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Number of Team One Student and Faculty Postings, by Cultural Background ...... 119
2. Number of Team Two Student and Faculty Postings, by Cultural Background ...... 120
3. Number of Team Three Student and Faculty Postings, by Cultural Background ....121
4. Team One Pacing of Messages Posted, by Event, Date, and Student ...... 124
5. Team Two Pacing of Messages Posted, by Event, Date, and Student ...... 126
6. Team Three Pacing of Messages Posted, by Event, Date, and Student ...... 127
7. Interactivity of Postings within Team Boxes ...... 129
8. Percent of Messages with Social Content, by Team and Student ...... 132
9. Percent of Purely Social Messages, by Team and Student ...... 135
10. Percent of Team One Social Pictures, by Student ...... 137
11. Percent of Team Two Social Pictures, by Student ...... 138
12. Percent of Team Three Social Pictures, by Student ...... 139
13. Overview of Participation Factors in Three Teams Studied ...... 140
13
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of Study
Cultivating a sense of community in education has become increasingly popular.
Within distance education, many see virtual learning communities as one of the best ways for students to direct their own learning according to constructivist principles (Anderson,
2003; Swan, 2005). A sense of community is often credited with raising student retention in online courses (Brown, 2001; Rovai, 2002b) and improving student motivation
(Roberts, A., 2004). As such, research activity in this area has been brisk in the last few years. Topics include the benefits of virtual learning communities (Barab, MaKinster, &
Scheckler, 2004; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robbins, & Shoemaker, 2000; Palloff &
Pratt, 1999; Preece, 2000), how they compare with face-to-face learning environments
(Rovai, 2002a), how communities are formed (Brown, 2001; Duemer et al., 2002), what students experience (Bikowski, 2007; Ludwig-Hardman, 2003), what methods can facilitate community development virtually (Buchanan, 2000; Cole, 2002; Ludwig-
Hardman, 2003; Opp-Beckman & Kieffer; Shea, 2006), and how to define them or what characteristics they share (Herring, 2004). Researchers have also studied how the technology itself may affect human interactions and feelings (Gunawardena, 1995;
Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Researchers have noted that groups that interact online do not always develop a sense of community (Belz, 2003; Ma, 2006).
One area within virtual learning communities that has not been as well-researched is relationships built within the community. Bikowski (2007) found that the relationships that students feel in this online environment are key to their overall feeling of community, and other researchers have expressed the importance of relationships in 14 online communities (Bonebrake, 2002; Carter, 2005; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Suler, 2007).
Yet, little has been written on relationships among students within their virtual learning community. Researchers have noted the need for more research into online relationships.
Harré (2001) notes that “The discursive study of friendship and other interpersonal relations is still undeveloped” (p. 702). Yum and Hara (2005) state that more research is needed so that the strategies that users employ to “develop genuine relationships in CMC
[computer-mediated communication]” can be identified (p. 12). Utz (2000) notes that more research is needed on virtual communities and their potential for developing relationships. Ponti and Ryberg (2004) state that there is a need for research into the social context of collaborative learning environments, as generally more research attention is paid to technological capabilities than to social issues. Finally, R. Roberts
(2004) notes the importance of the language that students use to form social relationships, as social language not only enables them to build a sense of community, but also facilitates learning through collaboration.
Another issue in virtual learning communities that has received little research is virtual learning communities comprised of members from different countries. What studies do exist are largely pair exchanges between language learners, which are similar to pen pal exchanges but done electronically. These studies do not examine the students as a community but rather as pairs discussing cultural readings and topics (Belz, 2003;
Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001; O’Dowd, 2003). Studies do exist of intercultural virtual communities, but not communities in the business of learning
(Cassell & Tversky, 2005; Panyametheekul & Herring, 2003). Research into this area is needed, as contradictions in the literature exist as to the role that cultural background 15 plays in online environments (Chen, 1995; Ess & Sudweeks, 2005; Gudykunst, Lee,
Nishida, & Ogawa, 2005; Yum & Hara, 2005). In terms of relationships formed in intercultural virtual learning communities, only one study, which studied students in the fourth through sixth grades, has been found (Roberts, A., 2004).
Many of the studies of virtual learning communities have been quantitative
(Rovai, 2002a; Shea, 2006), for example by having students complete surveys about their feelings of community and then identifying the best predictors for the high community score. Baym (1995) called for a move away from the predictive model of research and toward a more naturalistic inquiry. Qualitative studies have focused on students’ experiences of their virtual community experience, using interview data primarily but also incorporating online observation data as well (Brown, 2001; Greene, 2005;
Haythornthwaite et al., 2000). Few studies have taken a discourse analysis perspective and primarily focused on the students’ own language in their virtual learning community, and very few if any have looked at the language students produce and how they use that language in intercultural virtual learning communities. However, analysis of students’ online communication is well-suited as one way to compare communication from students from different cultures within virtual communities (Herring, 2004).
Need for Research
While some research has been conducted on intercultural virtual communities, little has been done on those devoted to learning. What research has been produced in intercultural virtual learning communities largely focuses on second language development. Little is known about the communication students use in building relationships in these intercultural learning environments. Particularly of interest is 16 understanding more about students’ use of discourse depending on their cultural background. Namely, whether students from different cultures use discourse differently as they build relationships is an area that has received little study and merits attention; also receiving little attention are the strategies that students use to build and maintain relationships through technology in an intercultural virtual learning community. The purpose of this study was to fill this gap and develop an understanding of this phenomenon, based on the discourse created by the students themselves.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand how undergraduate students in an intercultural virtual community used discourse to build relationships. Further, it sought to explore whether students from two different countries used discourse differently as they guild relationships. How media affected distance relationship building was examined as well. Analyzing the discourse of relationship building in an intercultural virtual learning community not only contributes to the development of theory, but provides practical implications for distance learning as well.
Research Questions
The following research questions were the focus of this study:
1. What was the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in
an intercultural virtual learning community?
2. Did the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an
intercultural virtual learning community differ between students from
different cultures? and if so, how? What other factors in addition to culture
might have influenced the students’ discourse? 17
3. What strategies did the students engage in to use technology to form and
maintain relationships?
Significance of the Study
Understanding the discourse students from different countries use to form and maintain relationships through computer-mediated communication is important because intercultural relationships are increasingly being formed and/or maintained through virtual learning contexts. Because of the potential for misunderstanding or miscommunication, empirical studies are needed to understand how culture might affect intercultural relationships. Increased understanding in this area will also enable faculty and course designers to provide high-quality educational experiences for students.
Understanding how students use discourse in their relationships in this environment will give instructors the information they need to monitor relationship building in courses.
Instructors can look at the discourse students produce in order to gauge student relationships and intervene as necessary to facilitate greater understanding between intercultural communicators. In addition to monitoring discourse throughout the course, instructors can structure courses so that students have opportunities to produce the type of discourse that facilitates the development of relationships via technology. It is important to understand these learning contexts, as it is likely that intercultural virtual learning communities will increase in the future.
Scope of the Study
The scope of this study included the course-based computer-mediated communication of three teams created within the context of an intercultural virtual learning community. Participants were undergraduates from the Global Leadership 18
Center of Ohio University and from the English Department of a large university in
Thailand. Discourse analysis provided the research design for this study. The authentic discourse of students who maintained a relationship with their intercultural partners past the course timeframe was examined. The discourse was analyzed by first identifying discourse features obtained from a review of the literature. The language was then qualitatively analyzed to further understand the types of discourse features that the students used. In addition, class observations and a video tape of a Skype teleconference between the Thai and American students were analyzed, and interviews were conducted in order to further understand the students’ discourse. The results are compared to the literature, focusing on this study’s research questions. Finally, implications for teaching within an intercultural virtual learning community are drawn.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited in the depth of the analysis, as not all students’ discourse was analyzed. Further analysis of the discourse of all the teams in this course would be useful. Another limitation is that the findings need to be interpreted as representing the experiences of the students in the programs studied and are not necessarily applicable for all students studying in intercultural virtual learning communities. A third limitation is that as the Thai students were using a second language for communication with their
American partners, care in interpreting their discourse must be taken.
Definition of Terms
Asynchronous Communication: Computer-mediated communication that does not occur in real-time and as such does not require users to be using the medium simultaneously; examples are email or discussion boards. 19
Blended Learning: A learning situation where learners spend part of their time working in a distributive learning system and also meet face-to-face.
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC): “Communication that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computers” (Herring, 1996, p. 1).
Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: “The analysis of logs of verbal interaction
(characters, words, utterances, messages, exchanges, threads, archives, etc.)” (Herring,
2004, p. 339).
Considerate: “Having or marked by regard for the needs or feelings of others…
Characterized by careful thought; deliberate” (American heritage dictionary, 2004).
Discourse: “The entire context of human language-in-use” Mey (2001, p. 190), which can include spoken, written, nonverbal, and online communication and which is influenced by society or culture.
Discourse Analysis: “A reciprocal and cyclical process in which we shuttle back and forth between the structure (form, design) of a piece of language and the situated meanings it is attempting to build about the world, identities, and relationships” (Gee,
2005, p. 99).
Distance Learning: “The acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated information and instruction, encompassing all technologies and other forms of learning at a distance” (The United States Distance Learning Association, n. d.)
Interactivity: Meaningful communication between students as such that the students influence each other in some way.
Intercultural Communication: A general term that “includes all aspects of the study of culture and communication” (Gudykunst, 2003, p. vii). 20
Intercultural Virtual Learning Community: “A group of people connected via technology-mediated communication, who actively engage one another in collaborative learner-centered activities to intentionally foster the creation of knowledge, while sharing a number of values and practices, including diversity, mutual appropriation, and progressive discourse” (Ludwig-Hardman, 2003, p. 26). The members of the community are from more than one culture.
Learning Community: A “culture of learning such that everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding” (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999, p. 271).
Relationship: The process of people interacting intentionally and regularly over time on a positive and voluntary basis.
Social Presence Theory: “The degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (Short, Williams, & Christie,
1976, p. 65).
Synchronous Communication: Computer-mediated communication that occurs in real- time, such as chatting online.
Transactional Presence: “A theoretical construct to characterize distance students’ perceptions of teachers, peers, and institutions” (Shin, 2002, p. 132).
Virtual: “Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network”
(American heritage dictionary, 2004).
Virtual Community: “Social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 1998, Introduction, ¶ 24). 21
Virtual Learning Community: “A group of people connected via technology-mediated communication, who actively engage one another in collaborative learner-centered activities to intentionally foster the creation of knowledge, while sharing a number of values and practices, including diversity, mutual appropriation, and progressive discourse” (Ludwig-Hardman, 2003, p. 26).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is arranged into three chapters. Chapter One includes an introduction, the statement of the problem, the research questions, the significance of the study, the scope of the study, the limitations of the study, the definition of terms, and the organization of the study. Chapter Two includes a brief introduction to social learning in education, relationships and community in education, computer-mediated communication, discourse analysis, and a review of the literature that uses discourse analysis to study computer-mediated communication. Chapter Three outlines the methodology for the study, including a description of the case, the role of the researcher, pilot studies undertaken, the participants, data collection and analysis, and researcher trustworthiness. In Chapter Four the results of the analysis are presented and discussed.
Chapter Five includes a discussion of the findings, limitations, teaching implications, and suggestions for future research. 22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
History of Social Learning in Education
Social Learning and Vygotsky
The history of social learning in education is a long one. Social learning researchers and theorists have drawn much of their theoretical and philosophical underpinnings from the Russian psychologist Vygotsky, who wrote in the early 20th
Century. In his concept of social learning, Vygotsky (1978) posited that social collaborations are key to mental development, that learning occurs through social interactions, and that meaning is also socially constructed. According to Vygotsky
(1978), learning occurs when culturally-produced sign systems are internalized and when tools (primarily language, but also including other tools) are socially adapted. Thus,
Vygotsky believed that it was possible to understand people psychologically by analyzing their technological activities (Cole & Scribner, 1978). As explained by Vygotsky (1978), speech and action begin as the same process in psychological development, and perception, speech, and action are all unified. Darhower (2002) discusses how following this psychological reasoning, computers, as tools, can actually impact mental functions.
Meskill (1999) states that the computer brings about “major change in the structure and dynamics of discourse and activity” (p. 154). With this view, computers can be seen as tools that can impact cognitive development.
Vygotsky (1978) believed that language plays a significant role in learning. He saw all objects, people, things, etc., as being psychologically determined. Under this view, language is culturally mediated and reality is based in the mind. Language development in children moves from outer speech to inner speech (a more highly 23 developed form of outer speech), meaning that thinking is also largely determined by social interaction and culture. This view that knowledge and learning are constructed through social interactions and culture is often termed social constructivism (Swan,
2005). The constructivist teaching paradigm holds learner-centeredness, problem-solving, and social interactions as crucial concepts. This paradigm has been confirmed through research, as discussed by Rushton and Larkin (2001). They provide an overview of studies that show, for example, that students coming from constructivist classrooms are more creative, have stronger receptive verbal skills, and can score higher on tests. They also discuss brain research that has confirmed constructivist principles, such as showing that young students learn better when in social situations.
A final important idea of Vygotsky (1978) was his idea of the zone of proximal development, or the area between what a person knows and what they could know with the guidance of an adult or more advanced peers. As Vygotsky (1978) stated, “human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (p. 88). Learning is thus social and requires that the learner be challenged.
Constructivism
The term constructivism refers to theories that view meaning as being “imposed on the world rather than extant in it” (Swan, 2005, p. 14). Thus, there can be many meanings and realities, as meanings are constructed in individuals’ minds through social interactions. Individuals, according to constructivism, alter their knowledge structures as they encounter new or divergent information (Swan, 2005). Learning is seen as an active process based on experiences, with knowledge likely being different for each individual, 24 and the learner’s interactions with their environment being crucial for learning (Savery &
Duffy, 1995). This theory is in opposition to positivist theories (whose adherents believe that there is one reality which can be identified and understood through empirical research) and to behaviorist theories (whose adherents believe that it is not possible to know what occurs in the mind) (Swan, 2005).
In addition to being largely based on the work of Vygotsky, constructivism can also be traced to Jean Piaget. Piaget’s understandings of knowledge, reality, truth, and objectivity were analyzed by Ernst von Glasersfeld. Von Glaserfeld (1982) sums up the underlying constructivist theory of learning by saying that “For a constructivist,…there is no way of transferring knowledge—every knower has to build it up for himself. The cognitive organism is first and foremost an organizer who interprets experience and, by interpretation, shapes it into a structured world” (p. 1). Von Glaserfeld (1982) notes that according to Piaget’s theories, the idea of existence is concerned with epistemology and not with ontology, meaning that cognitive operations and knowledge are of concern more than the realm of being or existence. Piaget’s epistemology rejects a positivist, one-truth and pre-established world and instead opts for a model of humans organizing, assimilating, and accommodating experiences and in the process constructing their own knowledge and “stable experiential reality” (p. 9) regardless of the ontological world.
Von Glaserfeld (1982) translates Piaget as saying that what remains is “construction as such, and one sees no ground why it should be unreasonable to think that it is the ultimate nature of reality to be in permanent construction instead of consisting of an accumulation of ready-made structures” (p. 9). To von Glaserfeld (1982) Piaget’s greatest contribution 25 was his idea that cognition does not always lead to one single, pre-established reality, an idea which was also shared by Vygotsky.
Thus, constructivism can be seen as stemming from the work of both Piaget and
Vygotsky. Constructivism focuses on the social aspect of learning, that communication, collaboration, and interactions construct meaning, and guidance by peers or adults is crucial (Swan, 2005).
Swan (2005) identifies teaching implications that can follow from the theory of constructivism. For one, learning resides in the mind of the learner and not in the instruction itself. Therefore, learning cannot be standardized. Another implication is that course designers should pay more attention to the learning environment’s design than on the delivery of the instruction. Learning environments should be focused on learners in order to help them create knowledge and community. Computers and communication through them can play an important role in providing a constructivist environment that facilitates learning (Darhower, 2002). Distance education is one example of how instructors can use computers according to constructivist principles.
Distance Education and Learner-Centered Education
Distance education falls within the domain of the larger context of educational
(or instructional) technology. Definitions of educational technology are many, but
Roblyer and Edwards (2000) state that any definition needs to keep in mind that educational technology encompasses both the process of teaching with technology and also the technology itself. Educational technology, then, is more than just tools and gadgets; it is what the educator does with those tools and gadgets. 26
Within educational technology is the subcategory of distance education. Terms within this area abound, including e-learning (a term generally used in business training settings), telecommunications (which focuses on the communications mechanism) distance learning or distance education (which focuses on the learning component), or online education (which focuses on education delivered through the Internet) (Roblyer &
Edwards, 2000). The United States Distance Learning Association (n. d.) defines distance learning/education as “The acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated information and instruction, encompassing all technologies and other forms of learning at a distance” (¶ 1). In addition to including learning through the Internet, this definition allows for the use of non-Internet media such as mobile phones, while terms such as online education are more restrictive. The term distance education is particularly applicable in the specific context of this study, as the students involved in learning in the context under study were located on different continents.
While the term distance education does not imply any educational philosophies, a large movement within distance educators sees distance education as an opportunity to focus on learner-centered, rather than more traditional teacher-centered, approaches, often following constructivist principles. As Swan (2005) notes, distance learning provides the opportunities for educators to design courses that are guided by the epistemological beliefs inherent in constructivism and encourage active learning by students so that they can form a learning community based on the construction of knowledge. Anderson (2003) identifies the features that the Internet has to offer that make student-centered learning particularly feasible, one of which is the possibility for community-centered learning, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas of knowledge being 27 generated collaboratively. The theory of distance learning developed by Anderson (2003) places at its cornerstone the notion that learning in this environment should be learner- centered. Roblyer and Edwards (2000) state that in the future distance education will likely become increasingly lifelike (e.g., virtual reality or virtual learning). The general consensus in the literature seems to place distance education as moving farther away from traditional teaching styles where the teacher is seen as disseminator of knowledge, and toward more learner-centered approaches. However, instructors are still seen as crucial in these courses (O’Dowd, 2003).
Distance education has been researched or discussed from a variety of perspectives, including theories or principles for learning (Anderson, 2004; Merrill,
2002), the benefits of distance education (Al-Bataineh & Brooks, 2003; Dede, 1996a,
1997; Roblyer & Edwards, 2000), how to build successful distance education projects
(Gunawardena, 1995; Rollins & Almeroth, 2004; Sunal, Sunal, Odell, & Sundberg, 2003;
Tolmie & Boyle, 2000), distance education vs. face-to-face courses (Rovai, 2002a; Ryan,
2000), how to integrate internet resources into a course (Li & Liu, 2005), the use of online resources in non-traditional pedagogy (Cheaney & Ingebritsen, 2005), virtual reality and distance education (Dede, 1996b), various media and distance education
(Levin, He, & Robbins, 2006), and supporting learners’ individuality in distance education (James & Gardner, 1995; Liu & Ginther, 1999; Logan & Thomas, 2002).
Blended or hybrid courses exist as well, where learners spend part of their time working in a distributive learning system and also meet face-to-face (Graham, 2006).
Graham (2006) notes that blended learning systems allow for the mix of traditional teaching methodologies with new distributed learning environments that include new and 28 always-changing technologies. While in the past distance learning used to imply self- paced learning, today distance learning has changed to become more interactive due to technological advances. These changes, along with the rise of constructivism, have led to the popularity of blended learning environments.
With this groundwork laid, today many educators in both distance education and brick-and-mortar classroom environments call for teachers to provide students with the opportunity to create their own knowledge and understanding within a social framework.
Calls for more social learning have taken the form of cries for more interaction in distance education, the building of social presence based on the work of Short, Williams, and Christie (1976), the building of transactional presence (Shin, 2003), the building of community (Rheingold, 1987), and the forming of relationships online (Bikowski, 2007).
Relationships and Community in Distance Education
The literature on online education is filled with calls to strive for interactivity, social presence, transactional presence, and a sense of community in online classes.
However, the similarities and/or differences between these concepts are not always clear.
An understanding of each of these concepts indicates that what they share in common is their focus on relationships.
Interactivity
The term interactivity does not have a clear definition in educational contexts
(Anderson, 2003; Shin, 2002); however, the fundamental essence of interactivity is objects or people having influence on each other (Anderson, 2003). Interactivity most often refers to students communicating with other humans (Fulford & Zhang, 1993; Shin,
2003), though it can also refer to students interacting with content (Anderson, 2004; Pelz, 29
2004). For the purposes of this paper, interactivity will refer to meaningful communication between students as such that the students influence each other in some way.
Anderson (2003) notes that not all educators agree on how much interactivity should be included in education in general, and in online courses in particular; he points out that this is a debate that has gone on for approximately 30 years. With the advent of newer technologies, including interactivity in online education has become easier and more prevalent, and valuing it has increased due to developments in social cognitive- based learning theories (Anderson, 2003).
Studies have shown that online instructors value teacher-learner and learner- learner interaction as contributing positively to the success of online courses (Su, Bonk,
Magjuka, Liu, & Lee, 2005). Student learning has also been shown to increase with more quality instructor interaction (Jiang & Ting, 2000, as cited in Swan, 2004). Research also indicates that while students value interaction in their online courses as contributing to learning, they do not all agree on the amount of interaction they prefer (Su et al., 2005).
Interestingly, even situations where students do not interact as much themselves but do so vicariously through classmates’ postings can contribute to student learning in online courses (Swan, 2004). Interactivity has also been heralded as being a means for learners to establish deeper relationships such as virtual learning communities (Anderson, 2004;
Brown, 2001). Interactivity is not an automatic secret ingredient for creating virtual communities (Baym, 1995), but it is often viewed as a first step to developing social presence or transactional presence and perhaps eventually communities (Shin, 2002). 30
Social Presence Theory
Social presence (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) is defined as “the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (p. 65). It allows for the study of how computer-mediated communication and distance affect social interactions. According to social presence theory, what matters to relationships that develop through media is that a communicator feel that the other communicator is a real person. Social presence theory is concerned with the potential of users to form relationships. How social presence is experienced with a medium is largely determined by individual users, how they understand the medium, how much they feel like they are communicating with a real person, and how those feelings affect behavior (Gunawardena, 1995). Social presence can be thought of as occurring in degrees of feeling (Tu & McIsaac, 2002) and is affected by the context and amount of interactivity (Tu, 2002). Also affecting social presence are intimacy and immediacy, which are conveyed through such means as eye contact, conversation topics, physical proximity, smiling, and vocal expressiveness. In non-face-to-face environments interactivity, intimacy, and immediacy are still important for the building of presence, but they may have to be communicated in different ways than in face-to-face environments
(Tu, 2002).
Research has indicated that increasing social presence in online courses also increases student satisfaction and learning (Richardson & Swan, 2003). Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) found that students’ feelings of social presence accounted for approximately 60% of their overall satisfaction score in online learning. Even though communication channels such as computer-mediated communication (e.g., discussion 31 boards, chat, etc.) are limited in their ability to provide social cues, it has been found that these media can contribute to increased social presence between learners; learners can still express themselves and build online environments such as virtual communities
(Gunawardena, 1995).
Social presence theory is slightly different from interactivity. While interactivity is a means to forming relationships, social presence theory is concerned more with the potential to form relationships. Transactional presence more completely develops the idea of how media affect relationships.
Transactional Presence and Distance Theories
Transactional presence theory (Shin, 2002) takes the concept of social presence theory one step further. Transactional presence is “a theoretical construct to characterize distance student’s [sic] perceptions of teachers, peers, and institutions” (p. 132).
According to this theory, learning and relationships depend on more than how much learners feel someone is out there—students need to feel connected to other users online and that classmates and instructors are available and interested in helping them. As the connection grows, according to this theory, relationships form and learning increases.
Transactional presence focuses on the quality or end result of the interactivity experienced in courses. Shin (2002) notes that not all interactivity is necessarily beneficial; those interactions that increase relationship building are viewed as more useful. Transactional presence is, then, a “relational construct,” with “transactional” meaning “relatedness” (Shin, 2002, p. 122). While interactivity basically describes actions, transactional presence describes a state of mind (Shin, 2002). Transactional presence provides a means to characterize student-student relationships (Shin, 2002). 32
Shin (2002) notes that little research has been done on the role of peer relationships in learning.
A related theory to transactional presence is the theory of transactional distance, a term which Moore coined in 1980 (Moore, 1991). Shin (2002) notes that her theory of transactional presence was built upon transactional distance, with both theories building upon the notion of relationships being key to education and learning. Moore (1991) explains that transactional distance refers to two teaching variables, dialogue and structure, that can cause psychological distance between communicators. He posits that the more dialogue (or interaction) an instructor has and the less structure (or rigidity) the course has, the less transactional distance is experienced. The variability in programs of their dialogue and structure stem largely from differences in course planning or implementation rather than from differences in technology. According to this theory, community building and relationship building in distance education would be facilitated by increasing the dialogue of students and decreasing structure.
Virtual Learning Communities
Both social and transactional presence contribute to the building of a sense of community. Rheingold coined the term “virtual community” in 1987 and then wrote the book The Virtual Community in 1998. In it, he commented that people in virtual communities do everything people in more traditional communities do except physical acts. He defined virtual communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 1998,
Introduction, ¶ 24). Imbedded in this definition are the concepts of an extended period of 33 time, a group, public communications, emotion, personal relationships, and communicating through cyberspace. Educators have looked to the idea of building a sense of community in distance education as a way to accomplish a variety of goals.
While some argue that the online environment cannot sustain a true community because of too little interactivity or too little collaboration, research does show that students can successful collaborate online. Curtis and Lawson (2001) found that “there is evidence that successful collaboration as described in face-to-face situations is possible in online environments” (p. 32). And Rovai (2002a) found that students experienced the same amount of community online as they did in face-to-face courses.
The benefits cited in the literature of learning communities are many. Community environments often increase student retention in classes (Brown, 2001; Rovai, 2002b), help universities attract more alumni donor funds (Brown, 2001), improve student academic performance (Rovai, 2002a), allow people from diverse viewpoints or backgrounds to work and learn together (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999), provide more holistic educational experiences for the learner (Barab, MaKinster, & Scheckler, 2004), encourage student networking after course completion (Brown, 2001), provide a means for students to identify themselves as professionals (Duemer et al., 2002), increase student motivation (Roberts, A., 2004), help students better understand complex issues
(Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999), encourage greater risk-taking in students (Palloff & Pratt,
1999), allow learners to use relevant background knowledge in their learning (Renninger
& Shumar, 2002), help students gain confidence in their learning in a safe environment
(Haythornthwaite, et al., 2000), allow for greater synthesis of group knowledge (Duemer et al., 2002), and help learners feel less isolated (Barab, MaKinster, & Scheckler, 2004) 34 as they include increased participation (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999; South, 2006) and peer encouragement (Preece, 2000).
Research into virtual learning communities has covered a variety of topics. They have been compared to face-to-face learning environments (Rovai, 2002a), finding that both groups experienced similar levels of community though they differed in community structure. The process of community formation has also been documented (Brown, 2001;
Duemer et al., 2002), with Brown (2001) finding that community formation occurs in three phases (friendship, acceptance, and camaraderie), with each phase showing increasing student engagement. Exploring community maintenance in online learning environments was researched by Haythornthwaite et al. (2000); they recommend activities to increase the likelihood of community maintenance, including having initial bonding experiences, monitoring interaction, and incorporating a variety of ways for students to communicate both publicly and privately. Factors that have been identified as contributing to students experiencing a sense of a community include high teacher presence, effective instructional design, and the instructor’s ability to engage students, create a trusting learning environment, and help student reach consensus; females also were more likely to feel community (Shea, 2006). Greene (2005) explored how learning communities can be used to enhance the learning experience and found that virtual learning communities provide the advantages of including real world examples, a variety of opinions, and relevant application to teaching situations. Lally and Barrett (1999) describe the socio-academic nature of virtual learning communities and note that having a cooperative goal structure and requiring interaction are important. Ludwig-Hardman 35
(2003) and Bikowski (2007) both sought to understand students’ experiences in virtual learning communities.
While many call for the development of more community in classes, researchers have not come to an agreement on what a virtual community is. As Cherny (1999) notes,
“There has been an astounding lack of consensus in the social science literature about just what is meant by the word ‘community’” (p. 248). Definitions of these learning contexts can be as simple as a group of users interacting (Duemer et al., 2002), though Herring
(2004) refers to simple interaction as not being a community. Or, there are detailed definitions such as this one from Ludwig-Hardman (2003): “a group of people connected via technology-mediated communication, who actively engage one another in collaborative learner-centered activities to intentionally foster the creation of knowledge, while sharing a number of values and practices, including diversity, mutual appropriation, and progressive discourse” (p. 26).
Other researchers have declined to define virtual communities or virtual learning communities and opt for describing them or giving examples of them instead (Dede,
2004; Preece, 2000). Rovai (2002a) identifies the key characteristics of virtual learning communities as shared spirit, trust, interaction, and learning. Baym (1995) identifies the four essential ingredients of a virtual community as expressive communication, identity, relationships, and norms. Herring (2004) calls for identifying the properties of virtual communities so that specific groups can be studied to see if they embody them. She recommends analyzing participants’ communication to determine if a group is a community, based on empirical evidence. Duemer et al. (2002) describe community formation, noting that it is an active process, one that students have to actively pursue. 36
Pea (2004) cautions “not to be too swept up in a quest to find ‘the right’ definition for learning community, virtual community, or community more generally” (p. xiv).
Cherny (1999) discusses the difficulties in defining community in general, while as early as 1974 Stacey concluded, “It is doubtful whether the concept ‘community’ refers to a useful abstraction” (p. 13) and avoided the term, advocating, instead, the research of components that are considered evidence of community. Sociologists Bell and Newby
(1974) also lament the lack of any definition of community, in spite of sociology’s search for one for two hundred years. They note that all too often people associate community with “the Good Life” (p. xliiv) and overlook the reality of problems or conflicts inherent in community life. Other researchers have noted that groups that interact online do not always develop a sense of community (Belz, 2003; Ma, 2006).
Another area of research in need of definitions is intercultural virtual learning communities. For the purposes of this study, intercultural virtual learning communities will be defined as “a group of people connected via technology-mediated communication, who actively engage one another in collaborative learner-centered activities to intentionally foster the creation of knowledge, while sharing a number of values and practices, including diversity, mutual appropriation, and progressive discourse” (Ludwig-
Hardman, 2003, p. 26) and whose members are from more than one culture.
A review of the literature, then, reveals that while certain characteristics of learning communities can be identified (e.g., shared culture, interest in learning), strict definitions or labeling of a group as a community or not is not likely most beneficial.
Instead, more useful is describing groups, their communication, and how they interact. 37
Shumar and Renninger (2002) note that one area of community that needs to be researched is understanding more about how users interact.
The core concepts of interaction, social presence, transactional presence, and community is relationships. Relationships themselves have not been widely discussed in the literature about online education. However, Shin (2003) argues that interpersonal relationships improve learning online and that relationship building is different from interactivity. Rovai (2002a), Brown (2001), and Bikowski (2007) include the building of relationships into their models of learning communities, and Harré (2001) notes that “The discursive study of friendship and other interpersonal relations is still undeveloped” (p.
702). Bikowski (2007) found that feeling a personal relationship was crucial for students to feel a sense of community in their online class.
Relationships
Personal relationships can range from acquaintances to romantic involvements and can be positive or negative, voluntary or involuntary, or formal or informal.
According to Hinde (1979) relationships require that partners interact regularly over an extended period of time, meaning that the interaction is not coincidental. Hinde (1979) agrees with Duck and Sants (1983) that relationships are processes and are not fixed and stable. Park and Waters (1988) note that relationships deal with how partners behave toward each other. As such, relationships should be studied in context by examining the behavior of more than one partner, since relationships are inherently social acts occurring in context. Cappella (1988) suggests that understanding relationships can be enhanced by studying interactions. To Cappella (1988), relationships are built when partners are able to mitigate the polar forces of moving toward intimacy and interdependence vs. moving 38 toward autonomy and independence, though these forces are largely culturally bound. For this reason, he states that studying interaction alone is insufficient, as it can be highly influenced by values held in the partners’ cultures. Because the current research project will study students’ positive and voluntary relationships, for the purpose of this study, the term relationship will mean the process of people interacting intentionally and regularly over time on a positive and voluntary basis.
Relationships can vary according to what partners are interested in accomplishing through the relationship; for example, partners may want to receive a reward or meet someone’s needs (Clark & Mills, 1979). Relationships can also vary according to personality traits (Park & Waters, 1988); according to culture (Fogel, 1993); or according to age, gender, or social class (McAdams, 1988). Relationships can serve as sources of support and influence partners as they move through the socialization process (Park &
Waters, 1988), and they often fulfill personal needs (McAdams, 1988).
Relationships can be viewed as occurring in stages. Gottman (1983, as cited in
Park & Waters, 1988) found that relationships move from information exchange to establishing common ground, to noting similarities and differences between each other, to enjoying each other’s company, and finally to being responsive to each other. Park and
Waters (1988) note that in order for relationships to develop, the participants need to like each other, have some similarities, and be compatible. Bikowski (2007) found that students were more interested in developing virtual relationships when the potential partners were perceived as different (e.g., from a different country). Bonebrake (2002) would add that initial attraction is important to relationship development. Bakhtin (1986) notes that social relationships greatly influence the language produced by individual 39 speakers, and that increased interaction with others results in language that becomes increasingly similar.
Social penetration theory is one of the most researched theories for studying relationships and friendships in particular. In social penetration theory, Altman and
Taylor (1973) note the stages of relationship building as being orientation (in which partners reveal limited personal information), exploratory affective exchange (in which topics are discussed in more breadth and depth, revealing more personality but little commitment), affective exchange (in which partners become more vulnerable to each other because they reveal more personal information, leading to higher quality interactions and smoother nonverbal behavior), and stable exchange (which includes spontaneous exchanges of very personal information). The two key concepts in social penetration theory, then, are breadth and depth of communication and the quality of the interactions (with more spontaneous and efficient interactions indicating more advanced relationships). This process can stop at any point, and relationships can move back down the intimacy scale, leading to relationship termination. Altman and Taylor (1973) note that communication between partners is an indicator of the stage of the relationship.
Similar to the ideas of increased communication indicating a relationship are the findings of Hsu, Ju, Yen, and Chang (2007), who found that partners share more knowledge with each other as trust deepens and they become more emotionally connected, share their identity, express concern, and develop mutual understanding. This research reveals that sharing more personal information and sharing information in general can be seen as indicators of a relationship. 40
Intercultural Relationships
As Gudykunst (2003) notes, intercultural communication is a general term that
“includes all aspects of the study of culture and communication,” while cross-cultural communication is generally concerned with comparing communication across cultures (p. vii). Jandt (2004) defines intercultural communication as “the communication between individuals of diverse cultural identifications” (p. 4).
Research has been conducted on how intercultural relationships develop.
Gudykunst, Gao, Sudweeks, Ting-Toomey, and Nishida (1991) found that partners in intercultural relationships that were more than simple acquaintanceships were knowledgeable about each others’ cultures, had no apparent language problems, had similar attitudes, and shared some intimate information with each other. Byram (1997), in his discussion of intercultural communicative competence, notes that in order for intercultural exchanges to be considered successful, the partners must not only understand each other, but also maintain a relationship. He develops a schema of four aspects of intercultural interaction that can lead to intercultural communicative competence: “knowledge, attitudes, skills of interpreting and relating, and skills of discovery and interaction” (p. 33). Kim (1991) found that intercultural partners were more attracted to each other and thus formed relationships more often if they had similar attitudes, with attitudinal similarity being more important than cultural similarity. Lee and Boster (1991) found that it is more difficult for intercultural partners to get to know each other than it is for partners from the same culture. Thus, the research indicates that attitude and similarities play a key role in intercultural relationship development. 41
Researching intercultural relationships.
One concern for research in intercultural relationships is in the role of information-sharing. For example, communication might be affected by if the communicator comes from a high-context or low-context culture. High-context cultures
(e.g., Japan or Thailand) code much of the meaning they convey in nonverbal signals or the meaning is culturally understood; Hall (1976) describes high-context communications as those in which “most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (p. 6). Cultures with more high- context communication are termed collectivistic, and the communication is more indirect.
People in these cultures are generally more concerned about the group than the individual
(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). For example, Li (1999) found that Chinese communicators interacted “for the sake of interacting (e.g., building rapport)” as opposed to for the sake of transmitting content (p. 195). Similarly, Spencer-Oatey and Xing (2003) found that
Chinese communicators found small talk to be essential for rapport-building.
Low-context cultures (e.g., the United States or Australia) place more emphasis on what is said than on nonverbal cues, with low-context communication placing most of the information “in the explicit code” (Hall, 1976, p. 6). These low-context, more direct cultures are often termed individualistic, as people are generally more concerned about individual rights and opportunities (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Low-context cultures have quite a bit of information-sharing. Li’s (1999) finding that Canadians interacted “for the sake of transmitting content” (p. 195) supports this idea.
Some research has suggested that differences between low- and high-context cultures can cause misunderstandings for communicators. For example, calling 42
Americans by their first name is generally acceptable, but this practice can be offensive in more high-context cultures. In fact, in Thai, speakers use terms of respect (such as terms of endearment meaning big sister phii, the more formal khun, or the term for teacher ajarn) and may or may not use the person’s name (Moerman, 1988). Similarly, in certain situations (e.g., formal business meetings), high-context culture communicators may expect the language used to be formal and laudatory, while low-context communicators might be more informal; these different expectations can cause misunderstandings as to intent and can affect the development of rapport between high- context and low-context communicators (Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003). The type of language expected can also cause misunderstandings. As Gudykunst (2003) notes, language in low-context cultures must be specific so that the context can be defined while in high-context cultures, language can be more ambiguous.
Another cause for misunderstanding includes the amount of self-disclosure people participate in with intercultural relationships. This can be influenced by culture, whether it is high- or low-context. People from low-context countries can find it very frustrating if they do not receive sufficient information from their high-context communication partner, while high-context partners can be frustrated if they are told information they think is unnecessary (Hall, 1976). Similarly, Americans value self-disclosure for relationship-development, while Chinese communicators do not value self-disclosure in this way (Chen, 1995). This can cause misunderstandings, since the expectation in low- context cultures is for more open communication, while high-context cultures expect restraint (Gudykunst et al., 2005). This research may conflict with that of Yum and Hara
(2005), who suggest that young people are becoming increasingly similar regardless of 43 their native culture. Thus, self-disclosure may or may not indicate an interest in developing a relationship, but Li (1999) did find that the perceived relationship a Chinese speaker felt with his/her conversation partner did impact the effectiveness of the communication.
The format of distance learning courses can cause some problems for these types of cultures. High-context learners are used to more structure than low-context users; as distance courses are generally based on Western, low-context models, learners are expected to play a key role in their learning (Morse, 2003). Distance courses being heavily discourse-dependent with fewer visual cues can cause difficulties for participants from high-context cultures as well (Morse, 2003). Li (1999) found that Chinese communicators (high-context culture) rely on tone of voice and nonverbal communication to convey concern for their conversational partner. In a distance course format, these communicators may be at a disadvantage. Faiola and Matei (2005) point out that web page design, which plays a crucial role in online learning and virtual communities, can influence users’ online experiences and understandings.
Not all researchers see intercultural communication as rife with miscommunication. Koole and ten Thije (2001) state that when analyzing intercultural communication, “Too often, this type of communication is analytically treated as a collision of static cultural systems” (p. 583). These researchers have found that communicators from different cultures can construct a “discursive interculture,” which they define as “the mutual basis for communication in intercultural communication” (p.
572). They call for a focus on “how participants mutually shape discourse” instead of 44 focusing on differences, thus illustrating how communicative actions can shape culture
(p. 585).
A review of the literature reveals things to consider when researching intercultural relationships: self-disclosure may or may not indicate a close interpersonal relationship, calling someone by their first name may or may not imply friendship, and the channel used for communication can affect intercultural relationship building.
Intercultural relationships and Thais.
Thais value interpersonal relationships very highly. As Komin (1990) states, interpersonal relationships are “of utmost importance” to the Thai social system (p. 160) and Thais are “easy to be friends” even across cultures (p. 173). Vongvipanond (2005) stated that the priority for all Thais is people: “A harmonious relationship and a well- being, especially the psychological well- being, of all people who are parts of the group or the community, whether this means a home, a work place, a neighborhood, a town, a country or the world” (¶ 48). An example of the importance of relationships to Thais is recorded by Prpic and Kanjanapanyakom (2004). They noted differences in Thais’ behavior depending on the amount of relationship building allowed for in tasks which involved intercultural teams: Thais engaged much more in planned activities when the activities were relationship-centered, but if the activities were task-centered, the Thais were passive or simply left.
There are a number of pieces of evidence showing the importance of relationships to Thais. Shawyun and Tanchaisak (2006) found that the top four rankings among Thai undergraduate students were short-term interdependence with peers, fun-pleasure, gratefulness in a relationship, and smooth interpersonal relationships. The values used by 45
Shawyun and Tanchaisak (2006) were based on the work of Komin (1990), who also found that the values of gratefulness in a relationship and smooth interpersonal relationship orientation were in the top four rankings of Thais.
The Thai language shows the importance of relationships (Vongvipanond, 2005).
Much of Thai language and nonverbal cues are used to ensure that social relations are smooth and respect is shown to the appropriate people, such as teachers, elders, or high- status individuals (Vongvipanond, 2005). For example, the Thai phrase mai pen rai, which roughly means it doesn’t matter, it’s ok, is a prominent cultural attitude. This phrase is used frequently by the Thais; it illustrates their easy-going nature and helps ease social interactions (Vongvipanond, 2005). The Thai phrase kreng jai is another example.
It means not wanting to impose, displease, or offend another person. Kreng jai is taught to Thais from an early age to ensure that Thais all try to ow jai, or please each other
(Vongvipanond, 2005). Sanuk (meaning to have fun) and len (meaning to play) are crucial in Thai social and work relations. They indicate that “the important requisite is that one should be able to derive satisfaction and pleasure in what one does,” and relating well with others is crucial to deriving pleasure (Vongvipanond, 2005, ¶ 45). Special vocabulary is also used to show respect, social positioning, and intimacy, all making for better social relations. For example, Thais use different pronouns in different social situations and attention is paid to positions of the head and feet to indicate respect and hierarchy (Vongvipanond, 2005).
According to Ohnesorge (2001) and Prpic and Kanjanapanyakom (2004), all of these language and communication traits help to ensure that Thais always save face.
Saving face, according to Komin (1990), is a mechanism to ensure that a person’s ego is 46 not insulted, as insulting a Thai’s ego is very serious. Thais generally use indirect means in order to soften any potentially face-threatening message, thus saving face and avoiding emotional outbursts or negative feelings (Komin, 1990). One result of everyone saving face is that there is no or little conflict, as “objections and conflicts are to be avoided at all cost” (Vongvipanond, 2005, ¶ 2). A Thai in Ohnesorge’s study (2001) said about intercultural business relationships: “The more friendly you are the less you will loose face…. If you lose face you will be seen as an enemy…. The more friendly you are, the more understanding you will receive” (p. 5).
Two main reasons for Thais valuing relationships so greatly are cultural values and also practical reasons. One cultural belief is an “underlying belief that their [Thai’s] life is not totally under their control so it is only wise to do good and be good to others”
(Vongvipanond, 2005, ¶ 48). Vongvipanond (2005) notes that the Thai’s value of relationships more than concepts such as success or achievement is illustrated by the fact that success and achievement are words in Thai that are new compounds, while words for relationships go back to older times in history. Another cultural reason for Thailand’s emphasis on relationships is that it is a high-context culture (Prpic & Kanjanapanyakom,
2004). Also, Thailand is collectivist (Prpic & Kanjanapanyakom, 2004) and collectivist cultures value “interdependence, social harmony, … and ‘pleasant’ relationships” (p. 4).
Thailand is also a feminine society (based on the work of Hofstede) which means value is placed on people being caring and polite, and that relationships are important (Prpic &
Kanjanapanyakom, 2004). A final cultural belief explaining the Thai’s emphasis on relationships is that they believe that one’s psychological health resides in a place called kwan. Since it is crucial not to upset someone’s kwan, having good relationships is key. 47
The other reason Thais seek relationships is for practical reasons. Interpersonal relationships help build networking and provide pleasure (Shawyun & Tanchaisak, 2006).
These practical reasons for forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships to Thais underline the fact that Thais may not always seek out relationships because of genuine interest in the other person, but rather as a means to avoid conflict or as a means to an end. A Thai in Ohnesorge’s study (2001) stated that “Friendliness is often feigned….
Friendliness is often on the surface only” (p. 5). Komin’s (1990) research seems to bear out that Thais seek relationships not only to form “sincere and deep reciprocal relationships” (p. 168) but also to gain entry to a coveted position. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Thais strive to form and maintain interpersonal relationships.
Sirisonthi (2004) notes that relationships which Thai undergraduate students develop through email may be affected by the cognitive complexity of the communicators. She found that both high- and low-cognitive complex Thai students developed fewer misunderstandings and more positive relationships when communicating through email. She refers to high-cognitive complexity individuals as those who are ego-supportive, comforting, good at conflict management, and strong with regulative skills. Low-cognitive complexity individuals are those who are more persuasive, narrative, referential, and have strong conversational skills. Sirisonthi (2004) notes another factor potentially influencing relationship building through email between
Thais: the method of communication. Thais prefer synchronous chatting to asynchronous email. A third potential influence is personality type, with self-esteem and self-concept possibly playing a role. It is important to keep in mind that personality type can affect the type of communication (e.g., intimacy) that a student engages in. 48
Virtual Relationships
As new media emerge, new types of relationships are being constructed.
Bonebrake (2002) notes that building relationships online is becoming an increasingly normal occurrence, especially for young people. She contradicts the often-held belief that users interacting frequently online are socially awkward and lacking in social skills.
Increasingly, there are few differences between the relationships that people build online and those built offline; also increasingly similar is the process of relationship development in both online and face-to-face environments. Carter (2005) concurs that online relationships are very similar to off-line ones and that online relationships are becoming increasingly commonplace. She also notes that many people are spending considerable time and energy on their online relationships, as they would in face-to-face situations.
Utz (2000) found that approximately 70% of users in MUDs (multi-user dungeons) self-reported that they formed relationships online, while Parks and Roberts
(1996) found that approximately 60% of newsgroup users reported developing relationships. Similarly, Parks and Roberts (1998) report that approximately 94% of the participants they surveyed in MOOs (MUD object oriented) had at the minimum one online relationship, and most of the relationships had moved from one virtual arena to a different one. Of the many types of possible relationships communicators can build virtually, Parks and Floyd (1996) found that the most common is friendship, and
McCown, Fischer, Page, and Homant (2001) found that casual friendship is the most common. Carter (2005), too, notes that a majority (two-thirds) of the individuals she studied were drawn to their involvement in a virtual world for the sake of building and 49 maintaining friendships. Parks and Floyd (1996) comment that relationships created virtually are almost “mundane” (¶ 34) in that they have become so ordinary.
The online relationship-formation process has been described as being similar to its offline counterpart (Carter, 2005), though online relationships may depend less on appearance (Parks & Floyd, 1996) and attraction (Bonebrake, 2002), as physical cues are absent, and also less on physical proximity (Parks & Floyd, 1996). Even with these differences, exchange of personal information is still key to relationship development
(Bonebrake, 2002). Some influences on online relationship development include time interacting with people online (Bonebrake, 2002; Parks & Floyd, 1996), ease with finding people with similar interests (Bonebrake, 2002), frequency of contact (Bonebrake, 2002;
Parks & Floyd, 1996), experience with the medium (Parks & Floyd, 1996), interest in forming relationships (Bikowski, 2007), and ability to take risks (Bikowski, 2007). Suler
(2004) notes the importance of “text empathy” in relationships built virtually, a concept he defines as “an intuitive feeling for what the others might be feeling or thinking” (p.
38). Similar to text empathy is the idea of being considerate, which can be defined as
“Having or marked by regard for the needs or feelings of others… Characterized by careful thought; deliberate” (American heritage dictionary, 2004).
Virtual relationships can be influenced by users’ behaviors in online environments. While users may bring their own cultural assumptions and values into their online communication, they may also choose to take on a new identity in their online communication, even trying to mimic what is considered to be more Western behavior
(e.g., more individualistic behaviors) (Ess & Sudweeks, 2005). As Ess and Sudweeks
(2005) state, “Thanks to the communicative possibilities provided by the Internet and the 50 web as global media, more and more people become cultural hybrids or ‘third identities’ that entail operating from at least two national cultures” (¶ 24). Hewling (2005) found that students created a third culture in their online course. This is similar to Yum and
Hara’s (2005) view that young people worldwide are becoming increasingly similar, regardless of their native cultures. It can be seen that virtual community members may or may not bring their cultural attitudes into their online communication and behaviors.
People are increasingly joining online systems specifically for the relationships that they offer. Suler (2007) states, “I have to agree … about it being friends that really make the difference” (¶ 20) in the virtual reality space Second Life. He also notes that relationship building virtually takes more time and effort than in face-to-face interactions.
Bikowski (2007) found that students valued the intercultural relationships they made in a virtual learning community very highly. In order to further understand relationships built virtually, it is necessary to understand communication mediated through technology.
Computer-Mediated Communication
Definition and Research Interest
Computer-mediated communication is defined by Herring (1996) as
“communication that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computers” (p. 1). The social construction of reality occurring virtually is “not constituted by the networks CMC users use; it is constituted in the networks” (Jones, 1995, p. 12).
This communication can be synchronous (meaning that the communication occurs in real-time, such as chatting online) or it can be asynchronous (the communication does not occur in real-time, such as email). Text-based CMC includes email or discussion boards.
Non text-based CMC includes activities such as videoconferencing or auditory 51 communication. This communication can be used for many purposes (e.g., academic, recreational, etc.) and can occur between communicators located near each other or on completely different parts of the globe. It is studied by researchers from a variety of fields, including business, communications, sociology, composition, and linguistics.
Walther noted in 1996 that “the nature of communication through computer networks is still debated, tested, and not very well understood when one examines the literature on the subject” (p. 4). Herring in 2004 notes that there is still little empirical research on online behavior and goes on to discuss the main characteristics that make
CMC interesting to research. Rogers in 2006 concurs that there is a need to research the discourse created in computer-mediated communication, particularly in asynchronous
CMC. Herring (2004) notes that one advantage is the textual traces left behind as people interact, allowing for empirical study. In addition to the traces left behind, CMC has unique language characteristics; for example, it is typed yet shares more characteristics with speaking than with writing (e.g., language is more informal and rapid). It has unique features as well, such as emoticons and special vocabulary and acronyms (e.g., lurking or
LOL for laugh out loud). A last advantage to studying CMC is that the language produced in CMC can be very different depending on the medium (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous) or on human factors (e.g., communicative purpose).
Another characteristic making CMC interesting to research, according to Herring
(2004), is the possibility for communication without extra-linguistic cues (e.g., gender, age, appearance, etc.). Suler (2004) notes that communicators are able to convey a great amount of non-linguistic information through linguistic means. The extent to which technology does and does not include behavior/interaction (similar to the concepts 52 inherent in social presence and transactional presence theories) is one that Herring (2004) notes deserves more attention.
The final characteristic of interest in studying CMC is when people join together to form a virtual community (Herring, 2004). The nature of computer-mediated communication allows researchers a new way to study social orders, as authentic text can be saved and analyzed at a later date, offering “insights into the genesis of human social organization” (p. 4). One of the great benefits of CMC is that it allows researchers to see community-formation occurring. While community-building is not new, the increased access to seeing how it occurs is new and should be taken advantage of (Cassell &
Tversky, 2005). Gunawardena (1995) notes that CMC is valuable for study because new social climates are being created that warrant better understanding.
Different factors might affect the type of discourse that communicators use in
CMC. Gender is one factor that can affect community, message content, and participation. Shea (2006) found that gender played a role in the extent to which students experienced a sense of community in online courses, with males experiencing lower levels than females. However, South (2006) observed no statistically significant difference between male and female students when she compared participation and sense of community scores. Hancock, Landrigan, and Silver (2007) similarly determined no difference in gender when examining the expression of emotions through CMC. Herring
(1996) did detect a difference according to gender—women posted more interactive messages with more information and men posted messages that communicated their views. Panyametheekul and Herring (2003) also observed differences, with Thai females being more likely to participate and receive feedback. Barrett and Lally (1999) found that 53 males sent more and longer messages than did females and males’ messages included more social exchange, while females’ messages, similar to Herring (1996), referred more often to previous message content. Barrett and Lally (1999) conclude that gender can affect relationships built online, just as it can in offline relationships.
Other possible factors affecting CMC exist. Moderators can affect participation and sense of community. Kienle and Ritterskamp (2007) found that participation in online discussions was impacted by deadlines imposed by moderators (with more communication around due dates) and that well-timed moderator interventions assist in helping students make decisions. Shea (2006) discusses the importance of teacher presence to sense of community. Users’ personalities can also affect how students communicate (Oberlander & Gill, 2006; Sullivan, 2001). Comfort with technology can affect sense of community as well (Brown, 2001; Tu, 2002).
Computer-Mediated Communication and Relationships
Some researchers previously held the view that computer-mediated communication leads to more shallow discourse and less-personal relationships (Baron,
1984; Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Rice, 1984). As this belief was more widely held in the past, the technology itself could be at least partly to blame for this perception.
Researchers have also noted the instances where CMC breaks down, such as when learners do not become sufficiently engaged with each other (Ware, 2005). Yum and
Hara (2005) note that virtual relationships are more difficult to create than are face-to- face relationships. Carter (2005) found the opposite, that online relationships were easier to form than off-line ones. Walther (1996) notes that CMC can in fact be more impersonal than face-to-face communication, but he notes that in some cases this is 54 desirable, that the communicator appreciates the ability to be less personal. Walther
(1996) goes on to note other cases where impersonal CMC arises: when communicators have no intention to meet face-to-face or continue communicating, when the technology interface encourages anonymity, when the communicators are not interested in interacting socially, or when communicators are very short on time. Grimes (1992) observed that relationships built through CMC do not always stand the test of face-to- face contact, that as some people present themselves overly positively, they present somewhat distorted versions of themselves to their CMC partners. For this reason, perhaps the measurement of relationships or community should be done only after users have met in person, not only online, and after they have had some time to interact to a greater extent.
Building Presence using Computer-Mediated Communication
More recent research indicates that CMC is not necessarily impersonal (Hancock,
Landrigan, & Silver, 2007; Jones, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Walther, 1996), and that in fact computer-mediated communication can be more personal than face-to-face communication (Walther, 1996). Jones (1995) notes that CMC can be an “engine of social relations” (p. 16). Baym (1995) states that “CMC not only lends itself to social uses but is, in fact, a site for an unusual amount of social creativity” (p. 160). Parks and
Floyd (1996) note the ways in which communicators have overcome perceived system deficiencies in order to form social relationships. Lea and Spears (1992) also discuss how paralinguistic cues such as spelling errors or punctuation marks cause email receivers to form judgments of the sender’s personal attributes. Utz (2000) states that as long as users are interested in forming relationships via CMC, they will be able to do so. Carter (2005) 55 discovered that most participants in her study found it easier to make friends online than in person, because online some people are more open, less judgmental based on physical appearance, more likely to trust each other, and more apt to share intimate information. In terms of CMC and learning, research has indicated that online courses can actually lead to more interaction than possible in face-to-face learning (Jaffee, 1997).
Walther (1996) identifies characteristics that make CMC more personal, such as sufficient time for relationship building and expectations that there will be an on-going relationship. Carter (2005) notes that having more experience online can help users to feel more inclined to build online relationships. Parks and Floyd (1996) suggest that online social experience is an important factor in developing CMC relationships and also note that relationships created online can expand to other virtual media (e.g., a newsgroup or an online social community tool such as facebook). Carter (2005) notes that online relationships frequently migrate to offline environments. Suler (2004) observes that relationships started through CMC can be cemented through face-to-face contact.
Presence is another factor important in building relationships through computer- mediated communication. As Herring (2001) notes, CMC “despite being mediated by
‘impersonal’ machines, reflects the social realities of its users” (p. 622). Tu (2002) identifies ways to increase social presence such as ensuring that students are confident in their keyboarding skills and that they are comfortable using tools such as spell checkers; increasing immediacy and making communication more personal through the use of emoticons and paralanguage (e.g., use of different colors or font sizes); keeping messages short and uncluttered to avoid feelings of frustration and decreased presence; maintaining private areas; and maintaining prompt response time. Having students define an 56 appropriate response time is beneficial so that students do not feel “angry,” “ignored,” or
“disappointed” (Tu, 2002, p. 16). Other means to increasing social presence include more disclosure of personal information (Pelz, 2004); increased interaction (Tu & McIsaac,
2002); team-based activities (Garrison, 2006); supplementing the medium with other forms of communication such as phone calls, photographs, or face-to-face contact (Parks
& Floyd, 1996); quoting previous messages or providing links to previous messages
(Herring, 2001); using visual-based CMC phrases such as I’m raising my hand (Herring,
2001); using parenthetical expressions (e.g., sigh), voice accentuation (e.g.,
*ASTERISKS*), trailers (e.g., …), and exclamation points (Suler, 2004); and designing messages that show clear concern for the recipient (e.g., organizing the message for increased readability, creating messages that indicate the sender is genuinely interested, anticipating the needs of the recipient and meeting those needs, responding to previous comments, and asking questions) (Suler, 2004). Riva et al. (2007), while they do not specifically discuss computer-mediated communication, do note that users in virtual spaces who feel more emotions are more likely to feel greater presence. Tu (2002) and
Gunawardena (1995) both found that increased social presence also leads to increased learning.
A theory that addresses this issue of the possibilities of creating virtual relationships is the social information processing theory. Social information processing theory (developed by Walther & Burgoon, 1992) states that with sufficient time and sustained communication, the difficulties posed by the medium of CMC can be overcome, relationships can be formed, and users learn ways to express relationship content. One way to overcome media difficulties and build relationships is by users 57 presenting themselves positively. Also important is users’ motivation to form relationships via CMC. Parks and Floyd (1996) and Utz (2000) both found support for this theory in their research. For example, Utz (2000) found that the use of paralanguage increased with time and also correlated with the development of friendships. Hancock,
Landrigan, and Silver (2007) found support for social information processing theory as well. They found that receivers of emails were able to identify the communicator’s emotional state (happy or sad). Happy communicators disagreed less, used fewer negative feeling words and negations, used more punctuation (especially exclamation points), and wrote longer messages. Receivers in general preferred communicating with happy communicators. They note that emoticons were used infrequently and played a minor role in receivers deciding on the emotional state of communicators. In spite of the interest in the social information processing theory, however, Yum & Hara (2005) note that it may be culturally-bound, meaning that researchers should be careful applying it to intercultural contexts.
A review of the literature on the language produced in computer-mediated communication will provide further insight into how to proceed with the empirical analysis of relationship building in online environments.
Computer-Mediated Communication and Language
Research on computer-mediated communication has looked at the language produced in this environment in order to better understand how it is used. A number of studies have analyzed CMC to discover if it has more features of spoken or of written language (Collot & Belmore, 1996; Yates, 1996). Herring (2001) notes that CMC contains many features of oral language, more than written, but that it includes a variety 58 of genres. Baron (1998a) also found a combination of spoken and written language features in email messages, with email messages being more similar to speaking on communicative measures (measured by use of first and second person pronouns, modals, and contractions) and more like writing on textual measures (measured by the frequency of adverbial subordinate clauses). Acknowledging that CMC is neither writing nor speaking, Suler (2004) refers to communication in this dimension as “text talk” (p. 20), and Shapiro and Anderson (1985) term email “written verbal communication” (p. 21).
Baron (1998a) refers to much of the electronic language being produced as being a type of Creole: “the seemingly schizophrenic character of email reflects ongoing creolization”
(p. 164).
Research also indicates that differences in CMC vs. other writing or speaking situations have to do with users consciously choosing certain language because it is more efficient to type, because it expresses their creativity, or because it is similar to spoken language (Cho, as cited in Herring, 2001). With asynchronous computer-mediated communication, the time lag inherent in the communication and the physical separation of communicators can affect the language produced (Rogers, 2006). The opportunity for increased response time in asynchronous CMC allows for more reflection on the part of the communicator (Stubbs, 1996), and the communicator can refer to previous communications (Rogers, 2006). Warschauer (1996) found that these qualities led to increased syntactic and lexical complexity in non-native speakers’ CMC when compared to face-to-face communication.
Research has also examined how technology and circumstances have affected the language produced. Mallon and Oppenheim (2002) found that email language varies 59 depending on its purpose. While users had a variety of possibilities they could use in their email communication, the users studied by Mallon and Oppenheim (2002) seemed to prefer certain communication and language styles, not because of technology, but due to social or situational considerations. Social e-mail messages, compared to business personal and business impersonal emails, have distinct features. These include having the highest readability score, more words, more trailing dots (…), more spelling mistakes and creative spellings (e.g., 2 for to), more contractions, more excessive punctuation (e.g.,
!!!), more instances of failing to use capital letters, and shorter sentences (Mallon &
Oppenheim, 2002). Social emails are also likely to not begin with a greeting and close either with no closing or with Love, followed by the sender’s name. Mallon and
Oppenheim (2002) posit that social email users are relieved to dispense with formal greetings such as Dear. For greetings, they suggest that social email users are comfortable closing with Love and feel no need to abandon it. They cite the increased informality in email and the increased ability for creativity as reasons that users might choose to send an email over writing a letter. In general Mallon and Oppenheim (2002) note that email is more informal than letters, likely due to the fact that email is a new medium with few social rules as of yet.
Baron (1998a) suggests that social factors influence the language used in email more than does the technology itself. She notes that technology has been available and rejected because of societal preferences. She also notes that emails are more informal as a general rule, that they are more likely to include personal information, and that they are shorter probably due to visual space restrictions and the ease of sending messages. Baron
(1998b) also suggests that written language has been moving toward informality for some 60 time, due not only to electronic communication, but also to loosened societal conventions and the way that writing is treated in the American education system.
Baron (1998a) argues that in addition to social forces, the technology chosen for communication (computer vs. pen and paper) can affect linguistic features such as word choice, sentence structure, and semantic appropriateness. Another force of change is young people themselves, as young people tend to innovate linguistic change more than older people: “literacy itself is changing due not only to the medium but also to the needs of a new generation of users” (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 281). Electronic communication is also influenced by the increasing number of communicators coming from non-Western countries (Bucholtz, 2000).
Herring (2001) identified factors that can affect the discourse found in CMC. For example, communication purpose (e.g., recreational vs. professional) can shape language.
Synchronous vs. asynchronous communication has an effect as well, with asynchronous communication being more likely to contain longer, more complex messages. A third factors is the context of the communication and the relationships of communicators.
Discourse is also affected by topic and activity type (e.g., salutations). A communicator’s past experiences in writing may also affect the language produced in CMC (Suler, 2004).
A final factor affecting the discourse found in CMC may be cultural differences, as different cultures have different ways of developing relationships, including those created through CMC (Suler, 2004).
Herring (2001) suggests that the many strategies users employ to convey their ideas and emotions in CMC indicate that they are adapting “the computer medium to their expressive needs” (p. 617). Suler (2004) notes that deeper CMC relationships lead 61 to text that is more expressive in thoughts, emotions, words and composition. In this way, text and the relationship mutually influence each other, and a communicator’s style can influence the receivers’ reactions. It is common to see textual representations of sounds to increase expressiveness, such as haha or ahhh (Herring, 2001); allowing small spelling or formatting mistakes in messages lends spontaneity to the discourse and may serve to strengthen relationships, appearing to be “a sincere expression of affection and friendship” (Suler, 2004, p. 38); CMC can be used to portray oneself more intentionally
(Suler, 2004); and as relationships evolve, changes are often visible in the frequency, spontaneity, nature, and rhythm of postings (Suler, 2004).
Similar to Mallon and Oppenheim (2002), Suler (2004) identifies useful places to check for relationship building discourse in CMC: the subject line (especially, examining the changes in subject lines over time), the greeting (e.g., for emotional tones, intimacy, or no greeting), and the sign-off line (e.g., contrasts between greeting and sign-off, creative name usage, the lack of a name).
Language topics of research in CMC include expressions indicative of relationship building (Duemer et al., 2002). The role of English use online and how that might affect CMC interchanges and power is discussed as well (Cassell & Tversky, 2005;
Roberts, A., 2004). One area in computer-mediated communication that is still not well- understood, however, is the way in which users from different cultures use CMC as a means for building relationships (Belz, 2005; Yum & Hara, 2005). The little research that is done in this area is often not empirically grounded (Belz, 2005). 62
Research on Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication
Research indicates that using computer-mediated communication in intercultural environments can be beneficial for the participants, but that simply interacting with an intercultural partner does not ensure intercultural understanding. The following studies provide insight on things to consider while researching CMC.
Meagher & Castaños (1996) examined how participation in an electronic bulletin board with Americans changed Mexican high school students’ perceptions of their culture and American culture. They found that the Mexican students actually rated
American culture with less favorable terms after communicating with Americans than before communicating with them. Mexican students found Americans to be more arrogant and racist than they had imagined they would be, possibly because of virtual culture shock—that if given enough time, the Mexican students would have gotten to know the Americans better and rated them more favorably. They end with a call for more research into “the effects of [the] intensive intercultural dialogue made possible by CMC”
(p. 200). One of the possible effects of this intense intercultural dialogue is the building of relationships. This study provides insight into important considerations such as the existence of virtual culture shock, the non-linearity of relationship building, and the fact that not all CMC leads to positive outcomes, inter-personal relationships, or deeper intercultural understanding.
Ma (1996) examined how synchronous computer-mediated communication influences intercultural communication, specifically between North American undergraduate students in a communication course and a mix of graduate and undergraduate East Asian students studying in either the United States or Taiwan. He 63 analyzed 20 American students’ reflective papers and notes from synchronous chat interviews with 25 East Asian students (from China, Japan, Korea, or Taiwan) and found that, in general, the students agreed with the five propositions he formulated about intercultural computer-mediated communication: (a) that intercultural CMC helped them be more informed about the other culture, (b) that intercultural CMC is not likely to follow the cultural rules of either culture, (c) that CMC allows for more direct communication than face-to-face communication, (d) that the students tended to self- disclose more with CMC than face-to-face, and (e) that CMC is more suited for information-sharing than is face-to-face communication. Points that Ma (1996) makes relevant to relationship building include the idea that cultural rules are formed within the context of the CMC and are not bound to one culture or the other, that CMC communication is likely to be more direct, and that self-disclosure increases in CMC.
These points should be kept in mind when analyzing computer-mediated communication in order to avoid making possibly incorrect assumptions.
Colomb and Simutis (1996) analyzed the synchronous computer-mediated communication of a different population of intercultural participants: at-risk university students coming from racially diverse backgrounds but all living in the United States. The researchers concluded that CMC gave these students a new environment that allowed them to “make a fresh start” (p. 221) with their writing and to feel less threatened about writing, perhaps because of the intermediate space between speaking and writing found in synchronous CMC. Or, the decreased pressure could be a result of the physical configuration of the computer lab. The importance of the user’s physical space in feeling social connections is a consideration not noted in social presence theory (Short, Williams, 64
& Christie, 1976) or transactional presence theory (Shin, 2003) but is an interesting possibility. An additional contributing factor to the reduced pressure was that experienced users worked with less-experienced users. The reduced pressure led to increased student engagement and interaction and more advanced problem-solving skills, and also allowed the students to develop their own community of inquiry. The researchers note the importance of authenticity in the use of CMC for learning and the importance of context.
Finally, as has been pointed out in other research (Bikowski, 2007), Colomb and Simutis
(1996) conclude that it is not the technology itself that brings about success, but rather the way it was used.
Morse (2003) conducted a study of an intercultural business course composed of mainly graduate students, with 24 students participating from ten different countries. He grouped the countries into high-context cultures (12 students) and low-context cultures
(12 students). He then analyzed student surveys about advantages and disadvantages of using asynchronous CMC for learning. He found that all the students, regardless of culture, agreed that the asynchronous CMC discussions did result in higher quality and quantity of learning, but that there were differences in the rankings of the advantages and disadvantages of asynchronous CMC based on if the student came from a high- or low- context culture.
While students from low-context cultures (e.g., the United States) valued the
CMC discussions because of the flexibility they afford the learner, students from high- context cultures (e.g., Thailand) appreciated asynchronous discussions because they allowed the students to say things that they thought were appropriate. The second advantage of CMC noted by students from low-context cultures was that they could 65 reflect on others’ contributions, whereas high-context culture students ranked second the fact that they could reflect on their own contributions. The students were given the opportunity to note other advantages to the asynchronous discussions, and low-context students noted advantages related to the participation environment, while high-context students noted advantages related to their own work, effort, or skills. Interview data indicated that the high-context students valued the closer relationships they made with their instructor and the ability to polish their contributions before posting them. The high- context students wished that they had been able to form social relationships with other students, while no low-context students commented on this point at all.
Morse (2003) concludes that cultural background does affect a student’s experience, due to cultural-specific learning patterns. Students from low-context cultures appear to be more outwardly oriented and students from high-context cultures more inwardly oriented, though he also comments that the high-context students’ communication in a second language could have affected their perceptions. He notes that
CMC is culturally based and as such can be biased against students from high-context cultures, and also that high-context students can be disadvantaged because of technology differences. High-context students can also be disadvantaged in CMC because of the increasing use of English in these environments.
The studies discussed above provide many points of consideration for CMC research about notions of culture and culture shock, the non-linearity of relationship building in CMC, the nature of CMC communication, the potential of CMC to increase student confidence and lower inhibitions in communication, the importance of remembering context while researching CMC, the possibilities (though not guaranteed) 66 of CMC increasing student interactivity and community-building, the role of cultural background in CMC experiences, and potential biases working against some members of intercultural community members in CMC. With these points in mind, a deeper understanding of researching computer-mediated communication is needed. A common methodology for conducting this type of research is discourse analysis.
Discourse Analysis
Research in virtual learning communities often consists of quantitative, survey- based methodologies. Students might complete a questionnaire to determine their sense of community (Rovai, 2002a) or their satisfaction with a course (Gunawardena & Zittle,
1997). Another option is for the researcher to determine what factors most predict students’ sense of community in an online course (Shea, 2006). Qualitative research based in grounded theory is conducted as well, including topics such as the process of community building (Brown, 2001) or the factors that contribute to a sense of community
(Bikowski, 2007). While this research is useful and needed, analyzing communicators’ own communication to gain understanding is useful as well (Wood & Kroger, 2000). In fact, Herring (2004) specifically advocates the analysis of users’ communication to more deeply understand virtual learning communities. This analysis is most frequently conducted through discourse analysis.
Definitions
Discourse analysis is a broad term referring to many types of research practices, and it is a term used in many different fields, including linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, communication, psychology, and sociology (Schiffrin, Tannen, &
Hamilton, 2001). Due to the variety of contexts, discourse analysis is a term that has 67 slightly different definitions and descriptions. One of the forefront methodologists in this area, Gee (2005), defines discourse analysis as “a reciprocal and cyclical process in which we shuttle back and forth between the structure (form, design) of a piece of language and the situated meanings it is attempting to build about the world, identities, and relationships” (p. 99). In more general terms he states that it “considers how language, both spoken and written, enacts social and cultural perspectives and identities”
(Gee, 2005, Introduction to Second Edition). Potter (2004) states that discourse analysis
“has an analytic commitment to studying discourse as texts and talk in social practices.
That is, the focus is not on language as an abstract entity. … Instead, it is the medium for interaction; analysis of discourse becomes, then, analysis of what people do” (p. 203).
Wood and Kroger (2000) note that discourse analysis focuses on “the phenomena constructed in discourse” (p. 22) and on the social functions of linguistic features.
Schiffrin, Tannen, and Hamilton (2001) comment on the importance of studying actual communication. Brown and Yule (1983) note that discourse analysis “cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs” (p. 1). From these definitions and descriptions of discourse analysis, commonalities include a language-based analysis of authentic communication that occurs in social settings in order to gain insight into people and/or societal groups and how they use language in human affairs.
Understanding the concept of discourse analysis requires an understanding of discourse, a term which can be defined in a variety of ways. Tannen takes a general approach, stating that “‘discourse’ is almost a synonym for ‘language’” (Schiffrin,
Tannen, & Hamilton, 2001, p. 3). Stubbs (1983) is slightly more specific, defining 68 discourse as “language above the sentence or above the clause” (p. 1). While some researchers use discourse and language synonymously, most researchers differentiate between the two terms. Jaworski and Coupland (2006) define discourse as “language in use” (p. 5) that can represent abstract value systems not easily uncovered. Fairclough
(1992) emphasizes the social dimension, stating that discourse is “language use, whether speech or writing, seen as a type of social practice” (p. 28) and adds that as discourse is social, it has the dimensions of social relations and social identity. Candlin (1997) notes that discourse “both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices” (p. iix).
Similarly, Koole and ten Thije (2001) define discourse as discourse as an “ongoing process of interactional construction” (p. 575). Mey (2001) sees discourse as “the entire context of human language-in-use,” referring to discourse as the “fabric of society,” with context referring not only to the immediate situation, but also to “the hidden conditions that govern such situations of language use” (p. 190). He adds that discourse is definitely more than just text. Mey (2001) explains Foucault’s idea of discourse as being “the practice of making sense of signs” and not just a string of utterances (p. 191); discourse is thus seen as an active process of creating meaning. Mumby and Stohl (1991) state that
“discourse is viewed as the primary vehicle through which social relations are produced and reproduced” (p. 315). Discourse is more than just verbal or written language, but includes other non-linguistic communication tools as well.
As can be seen from the previous discussion, discourse can be viewed as language and what it reveals about the context in which it was produced. Because of its multifaceted and complex nature, the study of discourse is inherently an interdisciplinary project (Jaworski & Coupland, 2006). Its significance reaches beyond interest in 69 language: “Discourse is an inescapably important concept for understanding society and human responses to it, as well as for understanding language itself” (Jaworski &
Coupland, 2006, p. 3). Discourse reveals information about societies and relationships.
Theoretical Assumptions
Wood and Kroger (2000) note three main theoretical assumptions of discourse analysis. The first assumption is that language is action. Language accomplishes things; it does not just mean something. For example, when a speaker says “I promise I will …” a certain act is accomplished. Discourse analysis focuses on what language is achieving, specifically how it is used “flexibly to achieve particular functions and effects” within a certain context (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 6). Another assumption discussed by Wood and Kroger (2000) is that with discourse analysis, discourse, not a phenomenon, is the focus of study. The features of the discourse become the “behavior to be explained”
(Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 8). As such, discourse analysis focuses on authentic discourse, not on self-report data or interview transcripts. Wood and Kroger (2000) point out a third assumption, that naturally-occurring discourse includes variability, both within the same person and between people. Since there is no one true version of reality in a speaker’s mind, language will by nature have to be variable. All discourse can be viewed as one version of the mind of the speaker. This variability is not considered problematic, but a point of study.
There are a variety of ways to consider discourse within different perspectives, including cognitive psychology, poststructuralism, and linguistic theories (Potter, 2004).
Potter (2004) notes that linguists have looked at communicator turn-taking, or researchers using pragmatics have looked at politeness theories. Literary theory and poststructuralism 70
(especially through the work of Foucault) have provided a very different approach, focusing more on “how a discourse, or a set of ‘statements,’ comes to constitute objects and subjects” (Potter, 2004, p. 201). As Potter (2004) notes, all of these types of research are termed discourse analysis. Within linguistic theory, pragmatics is one way to study discourse.
Pragmatics is the study of how communicators function, how they achieve communicative goals in context, with context referring to the dynamic “‘prehistory’ of a particular utterance, the sum end result of what has been said and done up to now” (Mey,
2001, p. 13). Pragmatics examines more than just words; it includes all the extralinguistic factors used by communicators within their societal context. It uncovers what language achieves. Society plays a large role in determining the communicative tools at a communicator’s disposal. Pragmatics reaches beyond the rules (e.g., syntax) or components (e.g., phonemes) of language, and focuses on the whole picture. It asks how communicators are able to understand each other in a specific context. Pragmatics allows the researcher to go “‘behind’ the conversation” and look at what is really going on in a culture or society (Mey, 2001, p. 10). This approach “represents the linguistic dimension of social interaction” (p. 10) and provides a deeper understanding of how people use language, nonverbal cues, etc. As Yule (1996, p. 4, cited in Bretag, 2006, ¶ 19) notes, pragmatics is highly functional and examines the communicator’s “intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions…that they are performing when they speak.”
One seminal work within pragmatics is the politeness theory developed by Brown and Levinson (1987). Under this concept, it is assumed that two communicators do not 71 want to engage in face-threatening acts, so they attempt to make their communicative partner feel appreciated, liked, respected, etc., and they try not to make the partner feel used or unduly infringed upon. Brown and Levinson (1987) offer a number of strategies that communicators can use to avoid face-threatening acts (e.g., use language that mitigates a request or shows due respect to the partner, use language that shows appreciation for the partner, avoid certain topics or ways of saying things, etc.). They surmise that communicators pay positive face to each other to build friendships, establish in-group membership, etc.
Discourse analysis within the realm of pragmatics leads to the assumptions that language is action, is variable, can only be understood in context, and influences and is influenced by society. Pragmatics allows the researcher to understand how language functions and achieves communicators’ goals.
Methodologies
Discourse analysis is useful for a number of reasons. It leads to increased understanding of social events, as it allows the researcher to see actions as they unfold, as opposed to researching self-report data, perceptions data, or interview data of events that occurred in the past (Wood & Kroger, 2000). Another advantage is that discourse analysis is flexible and can be adapted depending on the context, research questions, and data (Wood & Kroger, 2000). Researchers can draw upon methods used by other researchers or develop their own as well. Adger (2001) notes that discourse analysis is useful in educational settings: through discourse analysis, researchers have been able to better understand diverse students, how culture can affect learning and teaching, and the relationship between cognitive development and social space. 72
Being that discourse analysis does not follow a single theory or use specific methods, researchers carry out discourse analyses in different ways (Wood & Kroger,
2000). Regardless of the methodology used, discourse analysis should examine language in its full context. According to Bakhtin (1986), all discourse is linked to previous discourse and must be examined as such. Some researchers include quantitative methods in or with their discourse analysis, using for example using linear regression or factor analysis (Cassell & Tversky, 2005; Hancock, Landrigan, & Silver, 2007). Others take a more qualitative approach with discourse analysis, using grounded theory in case studies or ethnographies (Duemer et al., 2002; Haythornthwaite et al., 2000; Roberts, R., 2004).
Or, both methodologies can be combined or overlapped, as is explained by Schiffrin,
Tannen, and Hamilton (2001). A fourth option is that discourse can be analyzed based on a specific theory, where language characteristics or features are identified before analysis, and then the discourse is coded according to the framework (Belz, 2003; Bretag, 2006;
Rogers, 2006). Some would disagree with this method, as the speaker’s own words are not used for coding (Wood & Kroger, 2000). A fifth discourse analysis option is that it is neither quantitative nor qualitative, but a distinct methodology of its own, in that while it is similar to qualitative research, it has a different focus and different procedures (Wood
& Kroger, 2000). A final option for discourse analysis is one that analyzes texts specifically created through computer-mediated communication: computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA).
Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis
Computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA) is a type of discourse analysis developed by Herring (2004) to study computer-mediated communication. It is a “set of 73 methods” (Herring, 2004, p. 342) or an approach that can be used for either qualitative or quantitative studies and can be used in tandem with other types of data collection such as questionnaires, observations, or interviews. One common method in CMDA is a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches, with the researcher coding the discourse qualitatively, quantitatively counting the frequencies (and perhaps using statistical procedures such as linear regression), and then qualitatively analyzing and interpreting the findings (Herring, 2004).
The theoretical assumptions that Herring (2004) discusses that are in addition to the discourse analysis assumptions discussed above include the notion that “discourse exhibits recurrent patterns” (p. 342); studying discourse patterns that the communicator is not conscious of is of particular interest to researchers. Another assumption is that
“discourse involves speaker choices” (p. 342) which reflect cognitive and social factors, meaning that nonlinguistic insights can be gained from the communication. Herring’s
(2004) final assumption is that discourse produced in CMC “may be, but is not inevitably, shaped by the technological features of computer-mediated communication systems” (p.
343).
Computer-mediated discourse analysis can be used in a variety of research situations, such as social behavior, structure, meaning, interaction, and participation
(Herring, 2004). CMDA can be used to linguistically study group membership (Herring,
2004), the discourse styles associated with certain cultures (Hewling, 2005), or how communities use language (Cherny, 1999). Unique spellings or words can be indicators of a user being a part of a group (Cherny, 1999), while words chosen can reveal a speaker’s meaning (Herring, 1996b in Herring, 2004). Participation can be analyzed by 74 examining message frequency and length, for example a lack of messages indicating non- group identity (Belz, 2003).
Herring (2004) notes the process for carrying out computer-mediated discourse analysis. The first step is posing a research question that is “empirically answerable,”
“nontrivial,” “open-ended,” and “motivated by a hypothesis” (p. 346). Then the researcher selects an appropriate data sample (e.g., by theme, time, phenomenon, individual/group, or room/area). Data samples are usually not random, but are chosen for specific reasons or even for convenience. Acquiring a sufficient amount of data depends on the research questions and the frequency of the phenomenon being studied. More data is required for less frequent phenomenon and for research designs comparing two groups.
A pilot study is recommended, to better gauge the amount of data that will be needed.
As Herring (2004) explains, after acquiring the data, the researcher operationalizes key concepts based on the literature. Operationalizing is accomplished by identifying discourse features distinct enough so that any researchers using the same data would theoretically code the discourse in the same way. Due to time constraints, the researcher usually uses a pilot study to choose the most salient features to analyze based on what will best produce valid and convincing results for the research question. The concepts and the linguistic features identified as evidence of the concept are frameworks that can be applied to other data sets.
Fourth, analysis methods are selected and applied (Herring, 2004). Analysis can include frequency counts (e.g., of messages, message length, response rate, etc.), structural analysis (e.g., abbreviations, vocabulary, routines in the language, etc.), a pragmatic analysis (e.g., speech acts, politeness, etc.), or grounded theory. The five 75 discourse analysis paradigms that Herring notes are (a) text analysis (e.g., for classifying or describing texts in order to identify structural regularities); (b) conversation analysis
(e.g., for looking at how interaction is jointly negotiated in order to understand the mechanics of interaction); (c) pragmatics (e.g., for studying language as an activity and is useful for interpreting speakers’ intentions); (d) interactional sociolinguistics (e.g., for looking at how culture shapes interactions in order to understand socio-cultural meanings); and (e) critical discourse analysis (e.g., for analyzing how power and meaning are negotiated in discourse in order to understand ideology).
The two types of coding that exist are structural (easily identifiable such as certain words or emoticons) and semantic (unpredictable and more subjectively identified such as social phenomena). Semantic phenomena, though more difficult to study, often provide for more interesting research as long as the researcher maintains empirical rigor by operationalizing, defining, and applying consistently all coding categories and by limiting the amount of data to be analyzed. Both types of coding can be performed on the same data, for example by structural coding being applied to the whole data set and semantic coding being applied to only a sample of the data set.
In order to interpret results, Herring (2004) recommends discussing both medium variables (e.g., synchronicity) and situational variables (e.g., participant demographics).
These variables can be used to contrast results within a study (e.g., she suggests contrasting native English speakers and non-native English speakers) and can be used to cautiously generalize findings to other situations. Herring (2004) then recommends moving to three stages of interpretation: (a) summarizing the data analysis results, including identifying patterns; (b) answering the research question(s), noting expected 76 findings and unexpected findings with potential explanations; and (c) looking beyond the questions to broader implications (e.g., for theory, system design, or research methodology) and providing suggestions for future research. Herring (2004) points out that while discourse can never inform the researcher of exactly what a communicator thinks, the researcher should try to “construct the strongest possible evidential case for those interpretations she believes to be true” (p. 364).
Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis of Virtual Communities
One topic that Herring (2004) specifically recommends for study using CMDA is virtual communities. In order to operationalize the concept of virtual community, she identified six main characteristics of virtual communities found in the literature and then identified linguistic behaviors, also based on the literature, that are evidence of the formation of the six characteristics. These include participation (analyze frequencies of postings, rate of response, and text-based social network analysis); shared history (note if and to what extent users check through existing archives); shared culture (analyze discourse for evidence of group-unique language, jokes, jargon, register); shared norms and values (analyze FAQs, netiquette statements, reactions to conduct violations); solidarity (analyze verbal humor); support (speech act analysis of positive politeness); reciprocity (analyze turn initiation and response); criticism and conflict (analyze speech acts that violate positive politeness); conflict resolution (do an ethnographic analysis); distinct group awareness (analyze participants’ references to the users as being a group, look for language indicating a dichotomy of us vs. them); roles and hierarchies (analyze participation patterns or speech act analysis of linguistic acts performed by leaders vs. followers); and governance and ritual (do an ethnographic analysis). 77
Herring (2004) notes that CMDA can be used to compare communication from native English speakers and non-native English speakers within virtual communities.
Yum and Hara (2005) state that more research is needed so that the strategies that CMC users employ to “develop genuine relationships in CMC” can be identified (p. 12). Utz
(2000) notes that more research is needed on virtual communities and their potential for developing relationships. Ponti and Ryberg (2004) state that there is a need for research into the social context of collaborative learning environments, as generally more attention is paid to technological capabilities.
Review of the Literature using Discourse Analysis
A review of the research using discourse analysis of students’ own communication is included below, moving from research on the value of computer- mediated communication in intercultural environments, to discourse analysis of computer-mediated communication in virtual communities, to discourse analysis of computer-mediated communication in intercultural virtual environments, to discourse analysis of computer-mediated communication in intercultural virtual learning communities. It is clear from this literature review that while virtual communities and intercultural virtual environments have been researched, very little has been done in the area of intercultural virtual learning communities and discourse analysis.
Discourse Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication in Virtual Communities
The following studies provide insight into language that is indicative of relationship-formation within virtual environments that have experienced varying degrees of community. The studies use discourse analysis within the larger framework of case studies or ethnographies, employing some frequency counts as well. 78
Korenman and Wyatt (1996) used the case study approach to examine the sense of community (what they term as “groupness,” p. 225) experienced by members in a large women’s studies mailing list. Data consisted of questionnaires and members’ email communications, which were analyzed according to participation patterns. They defined the group they were working with as having a sense of community because of two things: responses on the questionnaires and the large number of personal responses/experiences included in the members’ communications. They found that participants’ use of features associated with oral discourse contributed to the sense of community experienced by the members. For example, many messages begin with phrases such as “And another thing,” which is more typical of oral rather than written discourse. Another feature based on speaking is when messages begin with an answer to a question without re-stating the question. Other features include very informal language, using the members’ names frequently, or the frequent use of “you.” Other contributors to the sense of community include the large number of messages exchanged, the exchange of personal information and personalized messages, a core group of members who contributed regularly, smaller group size, the members’ perception that their conversation space was safe for open discussions and encouragement, words that indicate that members feel an emotional connection to the group or consideration for other members, and a lack of flaming or outbursts.
Cherny (1999) in her ethnographic study notes the usefulness of CMC to create social bonds between groups of people; as such, she recommends the study of CMC to understand emergent cultures. She specifically advocates using a linguistic analysis to study online cultures. She notes that members in online communities often share the same 79 language (such as jokes or jargon), similar to the convergence discussed by Cassell and
Tversky (2005) and Ware (2005). Other community or relationship building language
Cherny (1999) identifies include language creativity; repeated story-telling; and CMC routines, which are often-repeated phrases such as openings/closings and help build a sense of membership.
Booth and Hulten (2003) used discourse analysis to study learning in asynchronous CMC. After identifying the underlying concepts of learning based on the work of Bowden and Marten (1998, as cited in Booth & Hulten, 2003), they identified the amount and types of interaction in the discussion boards of two groups of engineers and communication that was crucial to the learning process. Similar to Ware (2005), Booth and Hulten (2003) found that participatory verbs (e.g., identifying, naming, referring to, acknowledging, asking, or requesting) help build group cohesion. Although the authors did not specifically term this forum a virtual community, they do refer to group cohesion and language that contributes to that feeling of unity.
In their case study, Paulus and Roberts (2006) explored undergraduate students’
CMC as they engaged in discussions intended to promote learning. They used discourse analysis of asynchronous CMC triangulated with information from student reflective papers to analyze discourse pattern differences between two groups of preservice teachers, a more-successful group and a less-successful group. They calculated the number of messages posted to determine the interactivity of the group and coded each part of a message according to its function (content, social exchange, or administrative/logistical), based on Booth and Hulten’s (2003) taxonomy of contributions 80 and on verb types the authors identified. The authors found that the more successful group exhibited more social and supportive discourse and exchanged more messages.
An analysis of the studies discussed above indicates that certain characteristics are linguistic traces of relationships that have occurred in virtual communities. They include features more common in oral discourse, frequent personalization of messages, language indicating an emotional connection/concern for others, the development of similar language patterns, often-repeated language, creativity in language, repeated story-telling, participatory verbs, social discourse, and supportive discourse. Another feature noted in the literature is maintaining online conversations by answering questions and expressing interest (Ware, 2005). Having a small group size and exchanging a large number of messages facilitate community-building as well. While these language characteristics are useful for the study of relationship building in virtual communities, the studies thus far have not addressed virtual environments that include users from different cultures.
Research in this area follows.
Discourse Analysis of Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication
The following studies provide insight into the discourse that is used in intercultural computer-mediated communication to build relationships. It also provides information into types of frameworks that can be used in analyzing authentic discourse and considerations that need to be taken as discourse is analyzed in order to understand mental states.
Bretag (2006) used discourse analysis of 279 emails exchanged between herself as teacher and her ESL students to determine if email can be used to enhance student learning by developing a third space between communicators (a concept developed by 81
Bhabha), a third space being a theoretical area where the teacher-student relationship can be less hierarchical. She used Brown and Levinson’s (1987) positive politeness sociolinguistics/pragmatics model as a framework for her analysis. Politeness as important for cooperating with others online, because of the lack of pragmatic cues, is also noted by Smith (2003). Bretag (2006) then followed the steps for data analysis outlined by Herring (2004). Categories from Brown and Levinson (1987) that she used for coding include claim common ground (convey other is interesting, claim in-group membership, and claim common perspectives), convey cooperation (indicate knowledge of other’s wants, claim reflexivity, and claim reciprocity), and fulfill other’s wants (give gifts). Categories also added were praise, thanks, and share intimate information. Words or symbols representing Brown and Levinson’s (1987) categories were coded and she found that nine out of ten students and the teacher did inhabit this third space through claiming common ground and sharing intimate information. While this study does provide an interesting analysis of CMC, it would have been useful if Bretag (2006) had attempted to ascertain in some other way if the students felt they had a relationship (e.g., asked the students or noted if they still communicated with her after course completion) or if they experienced characteristics of the third space.
Furstenberg et al. (2001) used questionnaires and analysis of student reflective writing and asynchronous computer-mediated communication to determine the extent to which intercultural learning occurred between undergraduate students in a French-
American exchange. The forums were found to be useful, as they allowed for personal exchanges with their intercultural partners that led to personal relationships. The authors make the observations that one word can mean very different things in different cultures, 82 that the same word can have different representations in different languages, that different reactions to situations are based on different assumptions, and that acceptable things in one culture might be unacceptable in another. The authors note that “the ‘traces’ that students leave behind—the open forums, the logs, the papers, the evaluation questionnaires, and so forth—provide an extraordinarily rich source of information for researchers” (Furstenberg et al., 2001, p. 94). This study reminds researchers of the care that needs to be taken when analyzing discourse, especially if some of the participants are writing in a second language.
One study that has been done on a virtual community (but not specifically a learning community) is by Cassell and Tversky (2005). They used interviews and analyzed the CMC of a intercultural online community of 10-16 year olds. Most students
(62%) said they made friendships in the online community, with many students still communicating even five years after the summit. The researchers used word frequencies, regression analysis, and grounded theory in their study. For the interviews, participants were given their own message communication and asked what they were thinking about when they produced it, and were asked how they interacted with other participants and, if applicable, why they no longer participated. Cassell and Tversky (2005) found that over time, participants used more group-centered language (e.g., more we’s than I’s, more feedback, and more suggestions for action). This is similar to findings by Niederhoffer and Pennebaker (2002) about linguistic style matching (i.e., participants match their language to meet the group’s language, indicating group identity), which can be found by analyzing pronouns, emoticons, and topic selection over time and can include a group 83 developing its own private language or creating their own jokes or words (Baym, 1995;
Suler, 2004).
Cassell and Tversky (2005) found that the group created their community based on shared work more than on just social relationships and exhibited community behaviors such as allocating work or providing support. Their analysis included how participants presented ideas or themselves, talked about the future, used WH questions to indicate interest in another person (also found by Ware, 2005), used hedges (e.g., to soften opinions), apologized (e.g., for not communicating for a while), thanked other participants, sympathized with each other, used humor, volunteered to do something, agreed or disagreed on points, acknowledged input, asked for information, invited or offered feedback, expressed disappointment, delegated work, or expressed excitement or anger. This article’s in-depth analysis of a virtual community contains many elements that can be applied to the study of language created in these environments. However, one of the advantages of this research, that it provides analysis of a broad topic, also works against the article. The research is so broad that it is not feasible for the researchers to present all their findings in detail. Focusing on a part of community and how participants used language would perhaps have yielded a more in-depth review.
A study that analyzed the intercultural computer-mediated communication of university students who did not form relationships or intercultural competence is by Belz
(2003). Belz (2003) established behaviors for intercultural competence using Byram’s
(1997) attitudes component, which includes interest in forming a relationship with people from the other culture. Belz (2003) analyzed the email communication of the three students for evidence of Byram’s (1997) behaviors by operationalizing linguistic features 84 based on appraisal theory. Concepts from Byram’s (1997) model that Belz (2003) discusses and that relate to relationship building are “A willingness to seek out interaction with the other in a relationship of equality” (Belz, 2003, p. 89), “A genuine interest in the other’s point of view” (Belz, 2003, p. 89), and “A readiness to engage with culturally appropriate verbal communication in the corresponding contexts” (Belz, 2003, p. 90). Based on her analysis, Belz determines the three students were unable to form and sustain a social relationship. She analyzes the CMC using epistemic modality, which is “a powerful indicator of point of view” (Toolan, 2001, p. 71) over time (Belz, 2003).
Epistemic modality codes how much the speaker believes in the truth of a statement and what their point of view is. It can indicate if communicators are moving in similar directions (Toolan, 2001). Within epistemic modality, Belz (2003) coded categorical assertions (e.g., you are right), intensification (e.g., definitely), mitigation (e.g., maybe), and lexical absolutes (e.g., every). Belz (2003), similar to Furstenberg et al. (2001), notes that the students’ usage of a nonnative language needs to be considered during analysis.
Belz (2003) comments on the effect that directness in a language can have in building social relationships, as discussed by House in 1997. She also concludes that the students’ language indicates that they “move in opposite directions” (p. 88). This lack of convergence is consistent with Cassell and Tversky’s (2005) finding that as groups in her study formed relationships their language converged. Similar to Ware (2005), Belz
(2003) hypothesizes that a large reason for she students’ lack of development of intercultural competence is that they did not understand the other culture’s patterns of interaction. As social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) would suggest, the medium of CMC makes it difficult for students to understand culturally-contingent 85 communication patterns revealed through face-to-face cues. Though Belz (2003) did not triangulate her findings, this article does provide insight into language that occurs when relationships are not formed.
In his participant research into the development of intercultural competence through CMC, O’Dowd (2003) studied email exchanges between British undergraduate students studying Spanish and Spanish undergraduates studying English. The aim of the research was to identify the features of email exchanges that led to intercultural learning and also to identify CMC factors that might contribute to successful intercultural relationships. Data included email exchanges, interviews with the Spanish students, questionnaires completed by the students about their reactions to the email exchanges, and personal evaluations of the project. O’Dowd (2003) suggests that in addition to students feeling an interpersonal relationship with their intercultural partners, other factors that contributed to the development of intercultural competence were students (a) feeling that their partners were receptive to their opinions about their own cultures, (b) receiving questions about their own cultures that caused them to think critically, and (c) developing an awareness about there being different perspectives in the world. The emails that the students who did develop intercultural competence produced had a number of characteristics: (a) communicators clearly showed that they were thinking about their partners’ socio-pragmatic rules, (b) communicators included personal opinions about topics in addition to basic information, (c) communicators encouraged their partners to reflect and give feedback, (d) communicators exhibited interest in developing a personal relationship with their partners, and (e) communicators demonstrated interest in their partners by answering questions and encouraging them to 86 write. In his discussion on student pairs that did not work well together, O’Dowd (2003) notes that students’ negative ideas about a culture can be reinforced in these types of exchanges, similar to the findings of Meagher & Castaños (1996). O’Dowd (2003) stresses the importance of students being willing and able to engage in effective computer-mediated communication. O’Dowd (2003) ties his research into the:
‘technology-mediated’ model of learning with technology which, according to
Meskill and Ranglova (2000), places the learner’s construction of knowledge at
its centre. In this model, technology is used to facilitate interaction with variable
sources of knowledge and thereby exposes learners to a variety of perspectives.
(p. 133)
This model of learning clearly has constructivist principles at its core.
While O’Dowd’s (2003) analysis provides insight into how students do or do not develop intercultural competence, his analyses of the reasons for a lack of development of intercultural competence seem to be biased, as they assume that the fault lies with the
British students for not showing sufficient interest and appear to ignore the fact that the
British students might have been offended or put off by the harsh tones and strong opinions of the Spanish students’ emails. Belz (2003) in her article points out how these subtleties can affect the formation of relationships. Another point to consider is
O’Dowd’s (2003) data collection—he relies on the emails being sent to him by the
Spanish students, meaning that it is possible that he did not receive and analyze all email exchanges. In spite of these shortcomings, his discussions on how the students’ language exemplified Byram’s (1997) concepts of intercultural competence are very insightful. 87
These articles study the computer-mediated language of intercultural relationships, but the need still exists to analyze the discourse of relationship building in virtual learning communities.
Discourse Analysis of Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication
in a Virtual Learning Community
The one study found that looks at intercultural CMC in a community learning environment is by A. Roberts (2004), but its focus is on a learning pedagogy (problem based learning) and not on relationship formation. A. Roberts (2004) qualitatively analyzed student communication, transcriptions from student interviews, class observation summaries, teachers’ end-of-year summaries, and a field journal. Students were fourth through sixth graders from the United States and Costa Rica. A. Roberts
(2004) notes that students used descriptions of place to add to the richness of their relationship building, allowing them to know each other more by understanding their environment.
Chapter Summary
The tradition of the social construction of knowledge is a long one in education, and one that continues today. Within the rather ambiguous concept of community is the human force of relationships, which with the advent of new forms of technology, are increasingly developing in virtual educational contexts. Within the phenomenon of virtual relationships is the intercultural virtual learning-based relationship, a phenomenon that has received very little study to date. The methodology of discourse analysis offers advantages to studying this phenomenon, as it allows for the study of the participants’ 88 authentic language, captured in time and context. Viewing language as activity, discourse analysis can provide insight into how students build relationships virtually.
Characteristics that are often found in intercultural relationships formed in a virtual learning community include showing interest in each other and the group, conveying cooperation, developing intimacy, demonstrating commitment, showing interdependence, demonstrating intercultural understanding, conveying personhood, and demonstrating connectedness and caring. More detail on these concepts can be found in
Appendices A-C. The next chapter illustrates how a discourse analysis of an intercultural virtual learning community was carried out.
89
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to understand the nature of the discourse used in undergraduate students’ relationships in an intercultural virtual learning community. The students were undergraduates from two universities: Ohio University’s Global
Leadership Center in the United States and a large Thai university’s English Department in Thailand. The study described the discourse the students used in their relationships in their course computer-mediated communication, and examined how their discourse may differ according to cultural background. The study explored how the students used technology in their relationships as well. Discourse analysis was used for this study, following the guidelines outlined by Herring (2004).
The following research questions were the focus of this study:
1. What was the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in
an intercultural virtual learning community?
2. Did the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an
intercultural virtual learning community differ between students from
different cultures? and if so, how? What other factors in addition to culture
might have influenced the students’ discourse?
3. What strategies did the students engage in to use technology to form and
maintain relationships?
Case Study Approach
The case study approach was used for this study, as this approach allows for in- depth understanding of a specific context (Stake, 1995). A case is a specific, complex, 90 functioning, purposive, bounded, and integrated system (Stake, 1995). Case studies examine a bounded case holistically to develop an in-depth understanding of the context
(including pertinent interactions) with an interest in process and discovery (Merriam,
1998). Case studies are descriptive (Merriam, 1998). The case study approach was chosen as the case to be studied was bounded, it could be studied in-depth and in context, and considerable descriptive data about the discourse the students used in their relationships online could be included.
Case studies are most useful when the researcher has little control over events or when the case to be studied is very unique (Merriam, 1998), which were both the case in the current study. Data collection in case studies is recursive and interactive, with one source of data leading to other sources. Data is collected from observations, interviews, and documents, but usually one method is used more than the others (Merriam, 1998). In this study, discourse analysis of computer-mediated communication was used more than interviews or observations.
Description of the Case
The class chosen for this study was a blended course, but it was different from many blended classes. It took place in two universities, the Global Leadership Center
(GLC) at Ohio University and the English Department of a university in Chiang Mai,
Thailand. Unlike most blended learning situations, in this course, each group of students interacted and received support face-to-face in their home countries and then all students met face-to-face in Thailand with continued support from the faculty. Graham (2006) notes that courses being blended can contribute to building virtual communities. 91
In the Global Leadership Center, the course was one of eight courses that undergraduate students in the 30-credit hour Global Leadership Center certificate program took together over the span of two years. Students took this course in their first quarter together. There were four Ohio University instructors for this project-based course (two American professors and two teaching assistants, one American and one
Thai), with each instructor being faculty advisor for two or three teams. In Thailand, the students were seniors majoring in English. While the Thai students were not together in a certificate program as were the Americans in the Global Leadership Center, the Thai students had had classes together, and the students who worked together for their projects had chosen to work with each other and chose the project they wanted to work on. The
Thai students were very motivated to work with Americans. Even though this project created more work for them than was academically necessary, they were willing to take on the extra responsibilities because they wanted to work with American students and improve their English. There were four faculty members involved in the project in the
Thai university, two Thai professors and two American professors at the university. The students at the Thai university had a number of computer labs with internet access they could use. The GLC Thai teaching assistant reported that most of the Thai university courses did not involve the use of course management systems or online discussion boards.
This course consisted of 30 American students studying in America and 24 Thai students studying in Thailand, each group of students receiving on-site faculty support and all being located together. All communication was in English and lasted for six weeks. Students worked in intercultural teams of four or five students on a project for a 92 real Thai client, communicating through an online, password-protected discussion board with an area for each team. The American students began using the intranet approximately 10 days before the Thais began due to university schedules. The course included a Skype video conference toward the end of the online portion of the class. All students were present for the Skype video conference. At the beginning of the course, each student was required to post a personal bio sketch and picture, each team was required to write team goals and expectations, and Americans were asked to post pictures of our college town. After six weeks of working virtually, the American students traveled to Thailand and spent two weeks completing the project. The goal of the in-country portion of the course, as stated on the first page of the syllabus, was to “work as a member of an international team” to understand “the historical, social, political, economic, religious, and cultural environment in which you and your [Thai] university teammates are working and getting to know your Thai teammates and Thai Ajarns
[professors].” Instructors served as facilitators; students had to ultimately solve the problems they encountered and resolve any contradictions that arose.
The course chosen for study followed the constructivist concepts outlined in
Chapter Two, of student-centered and directed learning, social learning, and real-world context. The students generated their own knowledge based on their previous experiences and their new experiences working on real projects with other students. In addition to experiencing their classroom communities in their home countries, these students created their own community and relationships online as well through discourse and the sharing of pictures. 93
The online section of this course matched the description of an online learning community as defined by Ludwig-Hardman (2003, p. 26): “A group of people connected via technology-mediated communication, who actively engage one another in collaborative learner-centered activities to intentionally foster the creation of knowledge, while sharing a number of values and practices, including diversity, mutual appropriation, and progressive discourse.” While it is assumed that not all students did experience a sense of community in the course, a previous pilot study (Bikowski, 2007) indicated that some students do experience community in this course. Students who are interested in experiencing community have the opportunity to do so.
Purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to select this course, as a review of university programs revealed that this program is unique. This project-based, constructivist learning environment provided the opportunity for students to form intercultural relationships within a virtual learning community.
The Role of the Researcher and Ethical Considerations
As a faculty member in the Global Leadership Center, I was involved with this class, but not heavily. I was not an instructor in the course, but I did visit the class approximately once every two weeks and interact with and observe the American students, was present at their Skype video conference, looked at the communication between the students in the discussion board, and interacted with the American students during social events hosted by the Global Leadership Center. I took notes of the classes I visited. I had no contact with the Thai students, though I did see them during the Skype video conference. I do know the Thai professors, as we have taught this course together 94 in the past. I know the American students very well as I have taught them in three courses since the one described in this study.
In this study I had many roles. I analyzed the discourse of the American and Thai students, interviewed the American students, and observed the students in their course. In order for this research project to be successful, it was necessary for me to understand the students and to have a good rapport with them. The strong rapport that I have with the
American students provided extra insight into the study and analysis, contributed to the interviews being high-quality with sound data, and contributed to my trustworthiness as a researcher.
I also needed to have an understanding of Thai culture, Thai students, and Thai relationships in order to research this topic. This understanding was accomplished in a variety of ways. Over the course of the four years preceding this study I had been to
Thailand and worked with Thai students four different times for three to four weeks each time, teaching in the same Thai university. I have taught Thai students in similar courses to the one studied here, working with the same faculty as participated in the course during this study. During my time in these courses, I have observed many types of Thai-
American friendships. I have conducted teacher training at the university. I speak some
Thai as well and have conducted research on Thai culture and interpersonal relationships.
Further clarification has been provided from the Global Leadership Center teaching assistant from Thailand, who is a professor at the Thai university.
While backyard research can be a concern (Creswell, 1998), this study benefited from the greater rapport and understanding offered by my experiences with the course and programs. As Bogdan and Biklen (1998) note, however, as a researcher, I cannot 95 separate myself and my past experiences from my research. With this in mind, following
Bogdan and Biklen’s (1998) advice, I kept an open and reflective mind informed by the data I collected. I also kept notes of my reflections, noting that my “personal experiences and insights are an important part of the inquiry and critical to understanding” (Patton,
2002, p. 40). As I was no longer a faculty member of the GLC during data collection, the students could choose not to participate in the study without fear of their grades being affected. Pseudonyms have been used in this study to protect the anonymity of the students and faculty.
Pilot Studies
Two pilot studies aided in the development of this research. As a first pilot study,
I carried out a phenomenological case study in 2005 to explore the experiences of five students from the same type of course as was studied here. The context of this pilot study, while it was very similar to the course for study here, differed in four ways: the pilot study course was with a different group of students, one teaching assistant was different, the pilot study course included a phone conference only and not a video conference, and I was an instructor in the pilot study course. The data used for the study were interviews with the five students, observations of the class while still in the U.S., and documents such as the course syllabus.
In this study, I found that the undergraduate students placed great importance on the feeling of friendship in online learning contexts. Feelings of friendship were critical to the students who felt a sense of community in the online course. The three main components that were key in the development of their relationships were individual learner factors, sharing, and support. These factors were dynamic, as the relationship- 96 building process is cyclical and reiterative. Feelings of trust and group identity played a role in relationship development as well. I found that as students received more support, they shared more information not related to the project, developed more trust, and went on to develop friendships. An additional finding was that not all students were interested in or ready to develop relationships with their online teammates during the virtual portion of the class.
Social presence theory provided interesting insights into the case study. The two students who did in fact form relationships with their Thai teammates while working together virtually said that they felt their online teammates were real people, and not just words on a screen. These students tried to express themselves as real people, using humor and emotion, sharing pictures and music preferences, sharing information about their personal lives and friends, and expressing consideration for each other as people. The class phone conference helped some students develop intercultural relationships as well.
In order for this to occur, the students had to be interested in each other as real people and want to form a relationship. I found that students’ personalities play a role in the relationships that they form virtually. Students more willing to take risks or students more interested in relationships were more likely to form virtual friendships. This suggests that in addition to characteristics of the medium itself, also important is the will of users to form relationships in spite of medium-related limitations (Short, Williams, & Christie,
1976).
More research is needed into intercultural relationships in virtual learning communities, as very little research is available on this topic. During this study, I noticed that some students were continuing to communicate and maintain their friendships after 97 course completion. I began to wonder how students use language to build relationships in this specific online environment. This study was published in the Journal of Interaction
Online Learning, July 2007, under the title “Internet Relationships: Building Learning
Communities through Friendship.”
The other pilot study for this research was conducted with the same data set as used in this study. Before completing a full analysis of the students’ discourse, I identified potential language that the students might have used in their intercultural relationships (see Appendices A-C) and then analyzed the discourse by hand in two team boxes, looking for concepts from the literature. The goal of the discourse was to determine if these categories were a good beginning for the actual dissertation analysis and to experiment with various coding structures. I found discourse conveying the concepts identified by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Byram (1997). There were also incidents of students using technology in creative ways to express their individuality and personhood. I concluded that the concepts I identified were appropriate as a beginning for coding in my dissertation analysis. I also noted that students’ discourse changed throughout the course. Discussion after the Skype video conference was more relationship-oriented, with students expressing how excited they were to meet their online partners in person and making plans for what they would do when they met in Thailand.
My initial findings indicated that the discourse in the discussion board team boxes was worthy of further exploration.
Participants
I researched three teams in this study. This included the communication of seven
American students and six Thai students. I followed Herring’s (2004) recommendation 98 for the sampling technique of choosing participants in the same team box. This approach offers the advantage that students’ complete communication can be studied over their full period of time communicating together, which adds depth to the analysis. One disadvantage of this approach is that less communication is analyzed, which means there is less breadth. The three teams were chosen according to Patton’s (2002) approach of extreme case sampling, as they were cases that were “information rich because they are unusual or special in some way, such as outstanding successes” (p. 231). These teams were information rich as they built relationships and felt a sense of community in the course, which did not occur with all teams in this project.
The participants were from the November-December 2006 Global Leadership
Center course. Students were chosen based on Patton’s (2002) suggestion of purposeful sampling, which examines in-depth cases rich in information. American students who had maintained a relationship with their Thai teammates and who felt that they experienced a sense of community in the course were selected. Because of the relationship that I had with the American students, my deeper understanding of American culture, and my physical location in the U.S., I chose the American students for the study; the Thai students were included because they were the teammates of the Americans I selected.
In order to identify the American students who had maintained a relationship with their Thai teammates, in February 2007, I asked the American GLC students to indicate if they were still communicating with their Thai teammates. From the original cohort, thirteen students indicated that they were still communicating with their Thai teammates.
I identified these students as an initial pool of possible participants for my study. As 99
Grimes (1992) notes, it can be useful to wait to determine if students maintain contact before assessing relationships built online because after face-to-face meetings, relationships built online may fail. After identifying students who still communicated, I focused on students who not only still had a relationship with their Thai teammates but who also felt a sense of community in the course.
In order to identify which American students felt a sense of community in the course, I did three things. The first thing was observe the students in their classes and in the Skype video conference, noting which students seemed most excited about talking with their Thai teammates. While this provided a good overall impression, I realized that it was possible that some students were excited about their new Thai friends but did not express themselves as being overly excited due to their quiet nature. Therefore, I examined the communication in the team discussion boards and noted which teams seemed to be developing relationships and including more personal information. The combination of these two pieces of information offered a more in-depth impression of the relationships and community forming in the course, but I felt that it was not yet sufficient. In February 2007, I gave the students a survey (Rovai, 2002b) to determine where they scored themselves on feelings about classroom community. I specifically focused on the connectedness component of the survey. This method of choosing participants based on their sense of community is similar to the method used by
Korenman and Wyatt (1996). They used questionnaires and observations of user communication (identifying which groups included more personal information) to determine that the group they were working with had a sense of community. 100
The Classroom Community Scale developed by Rovai (2002b) (Appendix D) was developed specifically to measure the amount of community students feel in an online course, and permission to use this instrument was granted by Rovai. As stated by Rovai
(2002b), the Classroom Community Scale “measures sense of community in a learning environment” (p. 197). It consists 20 items, 10 of which survey the amount of learning the student feels took place and 10 of which survey the feeling of connectedness the student experienced in the course. Connectedness refers to students’ feelings of
“cohesion, spirit, trust, and interdependence” (p. 206). The instrument has been used in both face-to-face and online courses (Fengfeng, 2006; Rovai, 2002a; Rovai & Lucking,
2003; Shea, 2006).
Rovai (2002b) concludes that the instrument “is a valid and reliable measure of classroom community” (p. 197). The participants Rovai (2002b) used in his study were similar to the ones for this study in that there were more females than males, they were studying online, and the students Rovai used in his study were Americans. The ratio of white to minority students is similar between the two studies as well; twenty-nine percent of the students in this study were non-white, while in Rovai’s (2002b) study, 38% were minorities. A difference was that Rovai’s (2002b) participants were older than the students in this study; in his study the mean age was nearly 40 while in this study they were in their early 20s. The items on the survey were included in the final version based on concepts discussed and identified in the literature and on the ratings of a panel of educational psychology professors. A factor analysis of the survey by Rovai (2002b) confirmed the two factors of connectedness and learning. 101
I used the students’ scores on the Classroom Community Scale (2002b) as a third means of assessing the community they felt in the course. Those students that on average agreed or strongly agreed with the connectedness comments in the survey were identified. Though I considered administering the Classroom Community Scale (2002b) to the Thai students, the Thai teaching assistant in the Global Leadership Center advised against doing so. She felt that the Thai students would likely only complete the survey based on what they felt I as an instructor would like them to say, not based on what they actually felt.
Thus, in order to determine the teams for inclusion in this study, I identified which American students maintained a relationship with their Thai teammates; looked at the team communication in all the boxes, noting which teams expressed more relationship-focused discourse; observed their Skype video conference and noted which teams seemed most excited about their new Thai friends; and gave the American students the Classroom Community Scale (Rovai, 2002b) and noted the students who on average agreed or strongly agreed with the connectedness statements in the survey. The Thai students included in this study were those students who were the teammates of the
Americans. Three teams were identified that met the above requirements, with a total of seven American students and six Thai students.
Participant Information
The communication of a total of 13 participants was analyzed for this study. The procedure outlined by Ohio University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was followed, and approval from the IRB for my study (see Appendix E) to analyze students’ communication was granted. Interviewed students signed a consent form. 102
Descriptions of the participants (using pseudonyms) divided by team follow.
Information is from a variety of sources, including observations by the researcher, team box postings by the students, informal discussions with the American students, and information from online social networks. In general, the Thai students involved in this project were very strong and hard-working individuals who were motivated to join the project because of their interest in working with and socializing with Americans. They were well-prepared for the project through courses that focused on building communication and research skills, in addition to the fact that they had strong English and computer skills. After graduation, students from this project have gone on to do graduate work (some internationally), work in the hotel industry, and work as teachers, translators, or flight attendants.
Team One
Team One’s client was an organization that works to promote sexual health for homosexual males in northern Thailand. The team worked to help the client improve its public relations to reach more male homosexuals. There were approximately 11,000 words in this team’s discussion board communication. This team communicates through email or their facebook social networking accounts.
Eva
Eva was an Ohio University sophomore and a dietetics major. She is from Ohio, but she has lived overseas and has traveled extensively. Half Norwegian, Eva has spent many summers in Norway visiting family and considers herself fluent in Norwegian. She was active with an intercultural group on campus. While Eva was quiet in classroom situations, when she is with friends she is very outgoing. 103
Elizabeth
Elizabeth was also a sophomore at Ohio University and was an international studies major with a minor in Spanish. While she has grown up in the U.S., her family heritage is Italian and she identifies herself as such. She described herself as an optimist who enjoys life and tries to make peace wherever possible. Elizabeth is very outgoing.
Koo
Koo is a male Thai who during this project was a senior majoring in English. He has since graduated. His American teammates described him as responsible, hard- working, outgoing, and warm. They reported that his computer and English skills were strong.
Ping
Ping, also a male, graduated from the university as an English major and was working part-time as a model. His American teammates described Ping as very friendly, outgoing, and hard-working. His computer and English skills were also reported to be strong.
Team Two
Team Two’s client was an organization seeking to provide food and other necessities for needy children. The team worked to help the organization become better known and raise more money. There were approximately 7,000 words in this team’s discussion board communication. This team communicates through email or their facebook social networking accounts. 104
Amy
Amy was a sophomore at Ohio University and was undecided in her major. She has traveled extensively and lived in several places throughout the U.S. She described herself as optimistic and stated that she enjoys spending time with friends and family and learning about new cultures.
Neal
Neal was a junior at Ohio University majoring in creative writing and studied
Spanish. Neal reported that he enjoys experiencing new things, especially new food and new cultures. He loves to travel and has studied abroad. Neal values friendship and family greatly. He was rather quiet in class but more outgoing in social situations.
Megan
Megan was a sophomore at Ohio University studying International Business and
Spanish. She likes to dance and shop, and expressed interest in learning more about the world and in becoming more culturally diverse. Megan is very outgoing.
Jum
Jum is a Thai female who was a senior during the project. She has since graduated and lives in Chiang Mai, Thailand. The reason that this team chose the client they did was because Jum’s father is the director of the organization. The American students reported that Jum has strong computer and English skills and that she was a very strong and hard- working student. 105
Som
Som is a Thai female student also from Chiang Mai who recently graduated.
Since graduating, she has become a flight attendant. She was described as talkative, hard- working, and strong in computer and English skills by her American teammates.
Team Three
Team Three’s client was a group working to help local communities around watershed areas in the North to preserve their forests. They helped the client develop a marketing campaign to attract more people to their organization. There were approximately 10,000 words in this team’s discussion board communication. This team communicates through email or their facebook social networking accounts.
Krista
Krista was a sophomore at Ohio University and was majoring in computer animation with a minor in cultural anthropology. She described herself as an easy-going and shy African American who loves to learn about other cultures. She also values friends and family greatly.
Amber
Amber was a sophomore at Ohio University studying International Business with a minor in Spanish. Her family ancestry is Puerto Rican, and she values her family greatly. She enjoys learning about other cultures and has traveled to Puerto Rico in addition to Thailand. Amber is quiet and described herself as easy-going.
Dear
Dear was a senior English major during the project. From the northern part of
Thailand, Dear was described by her American teammates as reserved. 106
Milk
Milk was also a senior English major in the university. She was described by her
American teammates as very outgoing, making friends easily. Milk was from Chiang
Mai, Thailand, and was looking for a job.
Teaching Assistant
A teaching assistant in the Global Leadership Center was also interviewed. The teaching assistant was from Thailand and had a position with the Thai university. She had taught Thai undergraduates at the university for six years and had taught in the GLC for two years. At the time of the study she was working on her doctorate in addition to teaching.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection and analysis consisted of four parts. The first and main component was discourse analysis of the students’ discussion board postings in the three team boxes.
I also analyzed interviews with three students and one teaching assistant. The third component was analyzing the footage and my notes from the Skype video conference.
Finally, I analyzed the notes I kept of my observations of the class. The data collection and analysis process was iterative and recursive, as I sought information from various sources as needed. I concluded data collection with the discourse analysis after coding and analyzing all the students’ discourse. I concluded interviews when I reached a point of data saturation.
Discourse Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication
This study was primarily a discourse analysis of the students’ computer computer- mediated communication. Discourse analysis was chosen as it allows researchers to focus 107 on the discourse itself. As Fairclough (1995) notes, “Texts are social spaces in which two fundamental social processes simultaneously occur: cognition and representation of the world, and social interaction” (p. 6). Thus, the discourse the students used in their computer-mediated communication played a major role in the context they created and in the social relationships they formed. The large amount of authentic communication in this intercultural online environment was very well-suited for discourse analysis.
Discourse analysis allows for the discussion of texts with the actual communicators, a need voiced by Rogers (2006) and carried out by Cassell and Tversky (2005). As such, I was able to place the discourse within its larger context, following the spirit of discourse as discussed by Mey (2001). Another advantage of discourse analysis is that it is useful for studies that seek to understand a community in depth (Lemke, 1993).
This study followed the guidelines for discourse analysis of computer-mediated communication offered by Herring (2004). This type of discourse analysis was selected because it provided the background knowledge needed into intercultural virtual relationships. I followed the advice provided by Bogdan and Biklen (1982) about analysis: I worked with the data by “organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be learned” (p. 145).
Herring (2004) recommends five steps to computer-mediated discourse analysis:
(a) pose a research question, (b) select an appropriate data sample, (c) operationalize the discourse features of key concepts, (d) select and apply analysis methods, (e) interpret findings. Herring (2004) also notes the usefulness of analyzing participation when 108 examining CMC. As such, after posing the research questions and identifying the data sample, the next step was examining students’ participation.
An overall participation analysis of the students’ communication was performed, tallying the number of messages, frequency and pacing of messages, number of pictures, number of purely social messages, number of messages with at least some social content, and team interactivity. I then moved to analyzing the discourse of the messages.
In order to prepare for the analysis of students’ discourse, per Herring’s (2004) guidelines, I identified language characteristics or features that were potentially salient in intercultural virtual learning community relationships (see Appendices A-C) and created a preliminary coding scheme (Appendix F). I determined that a pragmatic analysis was most appropriate, as I was studying discourse as an activity to understand speakers’ intentions (Herring, 2004) and how they achieve communicative goals (Mey, 2001).
Reviewing the literature was useful for developing the necessary “level of skill appropriate for a human instrument” (Hoepfl, 1997, p. 50). I then began coding the students’ discourse, ultimately creating a coding scheme that fit the students’ discourse
(see Appendix G). Thus, coding was a fluid process. While I began with a coding scheme built from operationalized concepts, the coding scheme became more refined as I analyzed the students’ discourse and interviews. With a coding scheme and core code in place, a graduate of a linguistics master’s program also coded the data, noting any thoughts in a notebook. The use of a second rater allowed me to assess how well the coding scheme and core code fit the data. The second rater and I arrived at the same conclusions for analysis, lending the study credibility. 109
This study used mainly semantic coding, as discussed by Herring (2004). This type of coding allows the researcher to analyze more subjective and subtle phenomena such as social relationships. Though it required more time and researcher interpretation, it led to more in-depth analysis. Structural coding was also used, for example in identifying emoticons and specific words such as students’ names. The software HyperRESEARCH v. 2.8 was used for coding, but students’ communication was also analyzed and coded manually with colored pens. After coding the students’ discourse I moved to looking for relationships between the codes and for an overall theme or core code (Hoepfl, 1997).
Interviews and further analysis of the literature also contributed to my understanding of the students’ discourse during the analysis process.
After coding the discourse, I analyzed each teams’ communication and each students’ communication according to the coding scheme. I analyzed situational variables, per the guidelines of Herring (2004), for example discourse differences based on gender or cultural background. I continued with interviews and looked back on observation notes and the video footage to provide further understanding into the students’ discourse. The final analysis can be found in chapter four.
Observations
Herring (2004) notes that with some topics that are less operationalizable, CMDA should be supplemented with other techniques such as observations or interview. In this study I used my notes on class observations and conversations I had with students to add depth and understanding to my analysis. I focused on comments the students made about how they felt about their Thai teammates. I analyzed these notes using the same coding scheme I developed and asked students questions as needed during interviews. 110
Skype Video Conference Footage
I used my observation notes and the footage from the Skype video conference to add depth to my understanding of the students’ relationships. I viewed the video conference footage of the participants and analyzed their communication and my notes using the same coding scheme. In addition to spoken communication, nonverbal communication such as body language was also analyzed. Questions about the Skype video conference were addressed in the interviews.
Interviews
I conducted four semi-structured interviews for this study, three with American students and one with the Thai GLC teaching assistant. Semi-structured interviews were chosen because they offer more flexibility than do structured interviews and offer more structure than open-ended interviews (Patton, 2002). The interviews occurred after I had done some analysis of the computer-mediated communication and were transcribed.
For the students, after inviting them to discuss the course in general I moved to the following areas, using indirect questioning so as not to inadvertently bias the their responses. I asked them to describe their relationships with their Thai teammates before they left for Thailand, to describe their team dynamic including team roles, to describe all team members’ personalities, to describe why their teams worked as a cohesive unit, if anything bothered them about the team, if they did anything to consciously be friends before leaving for Thailand, if they did anything different to communicate with their nonnative English speaking Thai teammates, how else they communicated besides the course intranet, and specific questions about their team communication. Similar to
Cassell and Tversky (2005), I showed them their own team communication and asked 111 them what they were thinking when they said or did key things (e.g., used a nickname or emoticons, sent pictures, used more informal language or misspellings, etc.). I also showed them teammates’ communication and asked them what they had felt when reading it. The interviews were analyzed according to the emerging coding scheme as well. I asked two students follow-up questions through email messages or in person. See
Appendix H for transcripts of the students’ interviews.
The interview with the Thai teaching assistant in the Global Leadership Center focused on her interpretations of the Thai students’ discourse and on Thai cultural norms in general. For example, I asked her for possible explanations of why the Thai students expressed appreciation more often than the Americans; to comment on the coding scheme and core code of consideration; if she thought the Americans might have offended the
Thais and if so how the Thais would have expressed frustration; if the Thai students might have been offended or cared that the American students did not use Thai in their
CMC; questions about Thai students’ CMC; and any activities the Thai students likely engaged in to become friends since they were not communicating face-to-face. In addition to one face-to-face interview, I sent two email messages asking for clarification.
The interview transcript and email messages can be seen in Appendix H. Information gathered was used during analysis and interpretation.
Trustworthiness
Researcher trustworthiness was crucial for this study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state the basic question of trustworthiness as follows:
How can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences (including self) that the
findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to, worth taking account of? 112
What arguments can be mounted, what criteria invoked, what questions asked,
that would be persuasive on this issue? (p. 290)
In this study, I increased trustworthiness by building a case for credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Credibility
Lincoln and Guba (1985) note the importance of establishing credibility.
Misrepresentation and misunderstanding should be minimized (Stake, 1995). The data should be accurate, real, and relevant, and the analysis should be sound (Denscombe,
2002).
One way credibility was built in this study was keeping a log of processes/reviews and assumptions. “It must be clear how you reached your conclusion” and that this account is the best one in the context (Richards, 2005, p. 142). I have kept all project notes, old models/ideas, notes on theoretical sampling, and records of analysis and have been clear about my role in the research. Being clear aids readers in interpreting findings
(Creswell, 1994).
Another way I increased credibility was through triangulation (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). The concept behind triangulation is that since all methods have limitations, combining methods can help minimize the overall limitations of the study (Patton, 2002).
The purpose of triangulation is to test for consistency, with the idea being that inconsistencies are actually good in that real life is often inconsistent. Researchers should seek to understand the inconsistencies. Denscombe (2002) notes that triangulation allows researchers to come at “the same thing from a different angle” (p. 104). The types of triangulation used in this study, as discussed by Patton (2002), were methods 113 triangulation (following up analysis of the students’ computer-mediated communication with student interviews), data triangulation (using CMC analysis and also observation), and triangulation using multiple analysts.
Including pieces of students’ communication or interview comments in my final case study also increases credibility (Creswell, 1994). Including students’ own communication in the final report allows readers to interpret the data and judge my conclusions. Lincoln and Guba (1985) note that including raw data for readers to analyze can also increase credibility, which is why interview transcripts are included in this study.
Two other ways to strive for credibility I used include member checking and attempts to falsify researcher interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). With member checking I checked to see if my findings were consistent with the opinions of members of the group being studied. In order to falsify researcher interpretations, I looked for negative evidence, outliers, and rival explanations. I was careful not to make unwarranted assumptions and not to become too fixated on a particular explanation. I did, in fact, find places where students were not considerate when they could have been (e.g., in general they did not explain pictures very well). I also note a variety of explanations for the discourse that the students produced.
Transferability
As Creswell (1994) notes, qualitative studies by their nature have limited generalizability, yet categories or themes might be able to be transferred to other situations similar to the one encountered in the study. This potential transferability and the importance of context underline the importance of description of the research situation. With a thorough description of the research context, the reader can determine if 114 the research situation is similar enough to their own situation, and therefore if there is a possibility for transferability of the findings (Denscombe, 2002). In this study, I included sufficient descriptions, for example of the participants and the university setting, to allow readers to gauge the transferability of this study to their own research situation.
Dependability and Confirmability
Lincoln and Guba (1985) refer to dependability as being similar to credibility.
They recommend building dependability through auditing, which is record keeping and examination. In this study, I kept all records per the following suggestions. Their recommendations follow a dissertation by Halpern in 1983 and include keeping (a) raw data, (b) products from data reduction and analysis, (c) products from data reconstruction and synthesis (e.g., findings and conclusions, category structures, relationships), (d) notes on process (e.g., methodological notes on procedures, trustworthiness notes), (e) materials concerning intentions (e.g., personal notes, expectations), and (f) information used for instrument development (e.g., pilot forms, surveys).
Dependability can also include the quality of the data. Within my research, I had different types of data. Perakyla (2004) notes that different methods are needed for different types of research. With interviews, I ensured that quality transcripts were produced and maintained (Perakyla, 2004). For the computer-mediated communication I was careful to keep all the electronic and print records. For text analysis, the coder’s skill, insight, experience, and knowledge all play a role (Popping, 2000).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) compare confirmability to objectivity. Hoepfl (1997) notes that confirmability is similar to demonstrating neutrality in interpretations of the 115 data. The best way to increase confirmability is the audit process as discussed above
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Chapter Summary
This study relied primarily on discourse analysis of computer-mediated communication of three student team boxes, analyzing the discourse based on concepts identified in the literature, but was also open to concepts that emerged. I analyzed students’ participation and the specific language they used as they formed and maintained intercultural relationships in a virtual learning community. I also used semi-structured interviews with students and faculty, observation notes, and video footage. Their language was placed in the larger context of discourse, looking at how the language the students use is a reflection of their culture and environment.
The participants for this study were American and Thai undergraduate students who worked in intercultural teams to complete a project for a Thai client. All communication was done in English, as the American students knew little Thai. The course chosen for the study was based on purposeful sampling, as this is a very unique course. The seven American and six Thai students from the course were chosen based on purposeful sampling as well, with students being chosen who still communicate with their Thai teammates and who indicated through a survey that they felt an above-average sense of community in the course. The analysis of the data was qualitative, resulting in a coding scheme that drew upon concepts identified in the literature and on those that emerged from the students’ discourse. The analysis resulted in a deeper understanding of the relationships formed by students in an intercultural virtual learning community.
116
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The questions guiding this research were (a) What was the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an intercultural virtual learning community? (b)
Did the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an intercultural virtual learning community differ between students from different cultures? and if so, how? What other factors in addition to culture might have influenced the students’ discourse? and (c) What strategies did the students engage in to use technology to form and maintain relationships?
The findings discussed in this chapter were based primarily on the analysis of the discourse of 13 students from the United States and Thailand working together in three teams. Class observations and interviews with students and faculty supplemented the discourse analysis. Herring (2004) recommends analyzing the participation of students in computer-mediated communication as one means of understanding how the students communicated. As such, this chapter begins with a participation analysis. It then moves on to a discussion of the nature of the discourse in the three teams studied, also recommended by Herring (2004).
Participation Analysis
This section includes the number of postings by each team/student, the frequency and pacing of postings, team interactivity, social postings, and the posting of social pictures, and concludes with a summary of participation in all three teams. This section begins with an overall look at the postings in the team boxes. 117
Number of Postings
An overview of the number of postings in CMC can provide information on the closeness of relationships built by the communicators. For example, research indicates that a large number of messages indicates closer relationships (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996;
Moore, 1991; Paulus & Roberts, 2006; Ware, 2005). In this study there were a total of
189 student postings in the three team boxes studied, with Team One having 58 student postings (41 by American students and 17 by Thai students), Team Two having 51 student postings (33 by American students and 18 by Thai students), and Team Three having 80 student postings (50 by American students and 30 by Thai students). There were a total of 100 faculty postings, 26 in Team One (one from a Thai university faculty member), 26 in Team Two (three from a Thai university faculty member), and 48 in
Team Three (three from a Thai university faculty member). Not only did Team Three have the most student postings (80 postings), but also had the most postings by Thai students (30 postings). Team Two had the smallest number of postings in general (51 postings) and Team One had the fewest Thai student postings (17 postings). While the
American students posted a total of 124 messages, the Thai students posted about half as many messages, at a total of 65.
There was a broad range in the number of postings between the three teams, with postings ranging from three to 25. Team Two, while it had the most students, had the smallest number of postings. Teams Three and One dominated the number of postings.
The students Krista and Amber from Team Three posted 25 messages, and Elizabeth and
Eva on Team One were close behind, at 21 and 20 postings. The Thai students who posted the most were Team Three’s Milk (19 postings) and Team One’s Koo (14 118 postings), though Dear (Team Three) and Jum (Team Two) came in close behind with 11 postings. The American students with the fewest postings were both on Team Two, Neal with seven postings and Megan with 11. The Thai students with the fewest postings were
Ping (Team One) with three messages and Som (Team Two) with seven.
The team which saw the highest number of faculty postings was Team Three, with a total of 48, compared to 26 in the other two teams. In general, the Thai university faculty posted fewer messages, ranging from one to three messages per team. The
American university faculty members posted 10 messages on average, with the numbers ranging from one to 35 postings.
Table 1 illustrates the postings in Team One, showing a total of 58. Elizabeth posted the highest number of messages, at 21, and Ping posted the fewest, at three. While the American students posted a total of 41 messages, the Thais posted less than half, at 17 messages. This table also shows the faculty postings. On Team One, GLC faculty members 1, 3, and 4 and Thai university faculty member 2 posted messages, with GLC faculty member 1 posting the most at 12 messages. Note that for all the teams, a total word count of postings is not included, as a word count would include all the project analyses and reports posted, including those that were posted in multiple drafts and those that were posted strictly for archival purposes for the GLC students to reference in the future. Thus, a word count would likely be misleading.
119
Table 1
Number of Team One Student and Faculty Postings, by Cultural Background
Postings by Number of postings
Postings by students 58 student postings
Americans 41 postings
Eva 20 postings
Elizabeth 21 postings
Thais 17 postings
Koo 14 postings
Ping 3 postings
Postings by faculty 26 faculty postings
GLC faculty 1 12 postings
GLC faculty 3 7 postings
GLC faculty 4 6 postings
Thai university faculty 2 1 posting
Table 2 shows the postings of Team Two, which totaled 51. It can be noted that even though this team had more students (three Americans instead of two), the number of student postings in general is lower then the number of student postings in the other two
teams. In this team, the American student Amy posted the most (15), while the smallest
number of messages was 7, posted by Neal (American) and Som (Thai). The Thais posted
approximately half the number of postings as the Americans (18 vs. 33). GLC faculty 120 members 1, 2, 3 and Thai university faculty member 1 posted messages. The number of postings by faculty were similar in this team, ranging from three to nine messages.
Table 2
Number of Team Two Student and Faculty Postings, by Cultural Background
Postings by Number of postings
Postings by students 51 student postings
Americans 33 postings
Amy 15 postings
Neal 7 postings
Megan 11 postings
Thais 18 postings
Jum 11 postings
Som 7 postings
Postings by faculty 26 faculty postings
GLC faculty 1 9 postings
GLC faculty 2 8 postings
GLC faculty 3 6 postings
Thai university faculty 1 3 postings
Team Three had the highest number of messages, at 80, with the two American students posting 50 and the Thais 30. Both Krista and Amber posted the highest student 121 numbers, at 25 messages. It is interesting to note that these two students described themselves as shy and were in fact more quiet in the classroom. The smallest number was by the Thai student Dear at 11. Faculty members on this team posted the most messages as well, at a total of 48. GLC faculty member 3 posted most of those (35 messages), while GLC faculty member 2 posted only one message (see Table 3).
Table 3
Number of Team Three Student and Faculty Postings, by Cultural Background
Postings by Number of postings
Postings by students 80 student postings
Americans 50 postings
Krista 25 postings
Amber 25 postings
Thais 30 postings
Dear 11 postings
Milk 19 postings
Postings by faculty 48 faculty postings
GLC faculty 1 9 postings
GLC faculty 2 1 posting
GLC faculty 3 35 postings
Thai university faculty 1 3 postings
122
The posting analysis reveals that while all students posted messages, there was quite a range. One Thai student posted only three messages in the six weeks, while two
American students posted an average of four messages per week. In general, the Thai students posted approximately half as many messages as the Americans.
Frequency and Pacing of Postings
Suler (2004) recommends analyzing the pacing of computer-mediated communication, noting changes in the frequency, spontaneity, and rhythm of the postings. Belz (2003) examined message frequency, as for example, a lack of messages can indicate non-group identity. For this study, Tables 4-6 show when student messages were posted, by team and student. For each table, only dates when students posted are listed. The tables include important dates or events, such as GLC project deadlines, the video conference, and holidays. While the GLC students began working on the intranet on October 16th, Thai classes were not in session and therefore the Thai students did not
join them until October 27th. Global Leadership Center deadlines noted on the tables
include a personal bio sketch and pictures, a factsheet about the client, a report on a site
visit to a U.S. organization or company, and an industry analysis. Festivals listed include
Halloween and Loi Kratong (also called Lantern Festival), which is a Thai festival in
which people float candle lanterns down rivers. The dates when the GLC students
concluded their class work and when they left for Thailand are also indicated.
These tables allow for an understanding of when students posted, based on events
or dates. While some students posted fairly regularly throughout the project (e.g., Eva or
Elizabeth on Team One), other students posted more often at the beginning rather than
the end of the project (e.g., Amy on Team Two). 123
In all three tables, numbers under a student’s name indicate that message(s) were posted by that student on that date. An S by the number indicates message(s) that were purely social in content, with no project-related work mentioned. A P by the number indicates that the student posted social picture(s) on that date. Thus, it can be seen in
Table 4 that on October 18th Elizabeth posted three messages, all of them social, and
three social pictures.
Table 4 shows the messages posted by students in Team One. The majority of the
postings occurred between October 27th (when the Thai students began using the intranet)
and November 13th (when classes ended for the GLC students). Social pictures occurred
when a student entered the intranet for the first time, for Halloween (on November 2nd by
Elizabeth), and after the video conference. There are no large holes in the team’s
communication.
Purely social messages occurred when a student began using the intranet for the
first time, as a response to the Thai students being on the intranet (by Eva on October
29th), after the video conference, and just to wish each other luck.
124
Table 4
Team One Pacing of Messages Posted, by Event, Date, and Student
Event Date Eva Elizabeth Koo Ping 20 total 21 total 14 total 3 total
10/16 1 10/17 1 10/18 3 [3S, 3P] 10/19 2 [S, P] 2 [S, P] Photos/bio sketch 10/20 10/22 1 10/23 1 10/24 1 [S] 1 10/25 1 Thais begin on intranet 10/27 4 [P] 10/29 2 [S] 1 10/30 2 1 Halloween 10/31 3 2 11/01 3 11/02 2 3 [P] 1 Factsheet/site visit 11/03 11/04 1 Loi Kratong 11/05 1 1 11/06 1 Industry analysis/ 11/08 1 [S] 1 [S, P] video conference 11/09 1 11/11 1 11/12 1 Last GLC class 11/13 1 [S] 11/14 1 11/15 2 1 1 11/19 1 11/20 1 11/22 1 11/24 1 GLC left for Thailand 11/27 1
S=Social only message posted; P=Social only picture posted
125
Table 5 shows the message frequency and pacing of Team Two. Similar to Team
One, in Team Two the majority of the messages was posted between when the Thai students began using the intranet (October 27th) and around when the GLC students
stopped attending classes (November 13th). Another similarity between Teams One and
Two was that social pictures were posted when a student entered the intranet for the first
time, for Halloween, and after the video conference. This team also posted pictures for
Loi Kratong and when the project was completed (pictures of the students on presentation
day in Thailand). Purely social messages occurred when a student began using the
intranet for the first time, as a response to the Thai students being on the intranet, after
the video conference, for Loi Kratong, and at project completion.
126
Table 5
Team Two Pacing of Messages Posted, by Event, Date, and Student
Event Date Amy Neal Megan Jum Som 15 total 7 total 11 total 11 total 7 total
10/16 1 10/19 2 [S, P] Photos/bio sketch 10/20 1 [S, P] 2 [2S, 10/21 12 P] 10/22 2 10/24 2 10/26 1 Thais begin 10/27 1 [S] 1 [P] 2 [2S, P] 10/28 2 10/29 1 10/30 1 1 Halloween 10/31 2 2 [P] 11/01 1 1 [10P] 1 11/02 2 1 1 Factsheet/site visit 11/03 1 1 11/04 1 Loi Kratong 11/05 1 2 1 [S, 4P] 11/06 Industry analysis/ 11/08 1 1 3 [S, P] video conference 11/10 1 Last GLC class 11/13 2 11/14 1 11/16 1 1 11/22 1 GLC left for 11/27 Thailand 12/16 1 [S, 7P]
S=Social only message posted; P=Social only picture posted
Team Three postings can be seen in Table 6. The main posting range was from when the Thais began communicating to the last GLC class, but this team did have more postings past the GLC end-of-quarter date of November 13th, similar to Team One. Social
messages and pictures were posted at the same times as the other two teams. 127
Table 6
Team Three Pacing of Messages Posted, by Event, Date, and Student
Event Date Krista Amber Dear Milk 25 total 25 total 11 total 19 total
10/17 1 10/19 1 Photos/bio sketch 10/20 1 [S, P] 6 [6S, 5P] 10/22 1 10/24 1 10/26 2 Thais begin on intranet 10/27 1 [4P] 10/29 1 2 10/30 2 1 Halloween 10/31 2 [P] 1 2 [S, P] 11/01 1 1 3 2 11/02 1 1 2 Factsheet/site visit 11/03 2 3 11/04 1 Loi Kratong 11/05 2 11/06 1 1 2 11/07 2 4 Industry analysis due/ 11/08 1 1 video conference 11/09 2 [2P] 1 [P] 11/10 1 2 11/11 2 3 11/12 3 1 [S, 3P] Last GLC class 11/13 11/14 1 11/17 1 1 11/19 1 11/20 1 1 11/22 11/23 1 11/24 1 11/25 GLC left for Thailand 11/27 11/30 1 [S]
S=Social only message posted; P=Social only picture posted
128
In sum, communication in all three teams was fairly consistent and frequent.
While all teams experienced less communication after the American students stopped attending class, only one team (Team Two) posted few messages after GLC classes ended. All three teams were consistent in when they posted social pictures or purely social messages (when they entered the intranet, for holidays, and after the video conference). While some students clumped their postings in a short period of time (e.g.,
Amy, Neal, Milk, and Som), most spread them out more evenly throughout the course.
There were no large differences between Thai and American students in the frequency and pacing of messages.
Team Interactivity
Reporting on and analyzing interactivity within teams can also be useful. For example, Panyametheekul and Herring (2003) examined turn-taking in Thai CMC. In this study, Table 7 gives the interactivity of each team, noting the number of initial postings and the number of responses to postings broken down by team and team members.
Response refers only to a student clicking on the Respond button within the intranet and writing a response to the original posting. If a student wrote a response in a new posting or referred to a teammate’s communication later, this did not qualify as a response in this analysis.
It can be seen that all of the students with the exception of Milk had a low interactivity rating, with most students (both American and Thai) never responding to a posting through the Respond button or doing so only once or twice. A more thorough analysis of the postings revealed that the students did respond to each other very 129 frequently, but not through the Respond button. Team Three’s student Milk had the most responses at six, with responses being both project-related and social.
Table 7
Interactivity of Postings within Team Boxes
Team Team members Number of initial Number of responses postings to postings
One Eva 19 postings 1 postings
Elizabeth 20 postings 1 postings
Koo 12 postings 2 postings
Ping 2 postings 1 postings
Two Amy 14 postings 1 postings
Neal 7 postings 0 postings
Megan 11 postings 0 postings
Jum 11 postings 0 postings
Som 6 postings 1 postings
Three Krista 25 postings 0 postings
Amber 22 postings 3 postings
Dear 9 postings 2 postings
Milk 13 postings 6 postings
130
Measuring team interactivity by looking at how often students hit the respond button to messages does not, perhaps, provide much in-depth information. Looking across all three teams, in general students did not respond in this way. There were no large differences between Thai and American students in this response pattern.
Social Postings
Analyzing the amount of social content in CMC can also provide useful information (Herring, 2004). Students posted three types of messages: those with no social content whatsoever, those with a combination of social and project-related content, and those with only social content. For purposes of analysis, a message that had no social content in this study was one in which the student made no attempt to make a connection with any person who might be reading the message, made no attempt to put their personality into the posting, and made no mention of working with international students at all. Social connections could be conveyed in many ways, for example by attaching pictures, using any type of greeting or closing, naming the attachment something fun, or using emoticons. An example of a posting with no social content would be a subject line reading “Industry Analysis,” no text in the body of the message, and simply an assignment attached to the message.
The following tables provide information on the percent of messages that had at least some social content and those that were purely social. Table 8 notes the percent of messages with at least some social content. Team One had the highest percentages of social content messages, with the team average being 90%. The team with the lowest percentage of messages that contained at least some social content was Team Three, with
71%. Thus, Team Three had the largest number of postings but the lowest percentage of 131 postings with social content. Five students (one American and four Thais) had at least some social content in all their postings. The student who had the lowest percent of postings with social content was Krista, at 56%. The average percentage of American postings with social content was 78%, while the average for the Thai students was 95%.
132
Table 8
Percent of Messages with Social Content, by Team and Student
Team Team Number of Number of total Percent of messages members messages with messages with social content social content
One Team Total 52 58 90%
Eva 19 20 95%
Elizabeth 16 21 76%
Koo 14 14 100%
Ping 3 3 100%
Two Team Total 44 51 86%
Amy 10 15 67%
Neal 7 7 100%
Megan 9 11 82%
Jum 11 11 100%
Som 7 7 100%
Three Team Total 57 80 71%
Krista 14 25 56%
Amber 18 25 72%
Dear 10 11 91%
Milk 15 19 79%
133
Having a lower percentage of messages with at least some social content does not necessarily mean that the student did not include any social content in their messages.
Students who posted messages not intended for their Thai teammates (e.g., messages to
GLC faculty) could have had a lower percentage and still included considerable social content in other messages. Conversely, students who did not post assignments could have had high percentages (e.g., Neal). This percentage is also affected by the total number of messages posted. The Thai students may have had higher percentages of social content because they were not required to post assignments on the intranet, as were the American students. For the Thai students, all messages were for their American teammates and they treated them as such. This means that the Thai students almost always addressed the
American students, boosting their percent of social content. For the American students, there was some ambiguity on who the postings were for, resulting in more messages that were not addressed to or offered to the Thai students. Team One was different from
Teams Two and Three in this way. They had the highest percentage of social content, as the American students almost always offered their research/assignments to their Thai teammates. Another possible factor affecting social content in messages is that the
American students will have access to the intranet past project completion and thus often archive projects/assignments in the intranet. This will not be an option for the Thai students. If the Americans posted for archival purposes only they would be less likely to include social content.
The percentage of purely social messages is given in Table 9. While all the teams were relatively close in their percentages, Team Two had the highest percent of purely social messages (20%). The Thai student Som’s percentage of 43% purely social 134 messages was a large factor in this higher percent. The team with the lowest percent was
Team Three at 13%, with the American student Krista lowering the average with her 4% of postings being purely social. Thus, the team with the highest number of postings,
Team Two, also had the lowest percent of messages with some social content and the lowest percent of messages with purely social content. The average percent of purely social postings for the American students was 17%, while for the Thai students it was
14%. In Teams One and Three the American students had more purely social postings.
135
Table 9
Percent of Purely Social Messages, by Team and Student
Team Team Number of purely Number of total Percent of purely members social messages messages social messages
One Team Total 10 58 17%
Eva 5 20 25%
Elizabeth 4 21 19%
Koo 1 14 1%
Ping 0 3 0%
Two Team Total 10 51 20%
Amy 2 15 13%
Neal 1 7 14%
Megan 2 11 18%
Jum 2 11 18%
Som 3 7 43%
Three Team Total 10 80 13%
Krista 1 25 4%
Amber 6 25 24%
Dear 1 11 9%
Milk 2 19 11%
136
The percentage of purely social postings could be influenced by different factors.
For example, posting several pictures in separate messages as opposed to all in one message would boost the student’s purely social posting percentage. Another reason for differences in purely social postings can be the Thai concept of sanuk, or fun. Thais generally mix their work and play whereas Americans generally separate them—first you work and then you play. Accordingly, it would be expected that the Americans would have more purely social messages and that the Thai students would have more messages mixing social and work content. This explanation might work for Team One, where the
Americans clearly dominated in purely social postings, and might work for Team Three, where the Americans only dominate slightly, but it would not work for Team Two, where the Thai students had more purely social postings.
Posting of Social Pictures
The sharing of personal information and pictures is reported to increase feelings of social presence in online communicators (Parks & Floyd, 1996). In an interview, the
Thai teaching assistant for the Global Leadership Center confirmed that picture sharing, especially at the beginning of the project, was beneficial for relationship formation. As such, pictures shared by the students were analyzed. In general, students posted both social and project-related pictures. Social pictures are those that were not related to the project. Examples include pictures of students with their families, for the holidays, etc.
Tables 10-12 report on the percent of social pictures that each team and student posted, in addition to the number of total pictures posted by the team. Team One had the lowest number of pictures posted, but all of the pictures were social, as can be seen in Table 10.
137
Table 10
Percent of Team One Social Pictures, by Student
Team members Number of Number of Percent of pictures social pictures total pictures that are social
Team Total 8 8 100%
Americans Total 7 7 100%
Eva 1 1 100%
Elizabeth 6 6 100%
Thais Total 1 1 100%
Koo 1 1 100%
Ping 0 0 0
Table 11 displays social pictures from Team Two. It can be seen that the
American students posted only social pictures but the Thai students posted social and
project-related pictures (of the team’s Thai client). This gave this team a rather high
percent of social pictures, at 89%.
138
Table 11
Percent of Team Two Social Pictures, by Student
Team members Number of Number of Percent of pictures social pictures total pictures that are social
Team Total 39 44 89%
Americans Total 24 24 100%
Amy 1 1 100%
Neal 1 1 100%
Megan 22 22 100%
Thais Total 15 20 75%
Jum 10 15 67%
Som 5 5 100%
Team Three, as shown in Table 12, had a lower percent of social pictures (49%)
because both the Thai and American students posted project-related pictures. Having a
higher percent of social pictures does not necessarily mean that the team had deeper
relationships. Sharing project-related pictures demonstrated interest in the project and
concern for the distance teammates.
139
Table 12
Percent of Team Three Social Pictures, by Student
Team members Number of Number of Percent of pictures social pictures total pictures that are social
Team Total 18 37 49%
Americans Total 12 28 43%
Krista 4 20 20%
Amber 8 8 100%
Thais Total 6 9 67%
Dear 4 7 57%
Milk 2 2 100%
Looking at raw numbers, Team One had the fewest social pictures (eight) and
Team Two had the most (39). Thai students shared a total of 22 pictures, while
Americans posted a total of 43 pictures. Team Three had the best balance between
pictures being posted for the project and for social purposes only. This was the only team
where the Thai students and the Americans both posted project and social pictures. This
percentage could have been influenced by the project client. Team Three had a client in
Thailand that was similar to small businesses near the American students, meaning the
American students could easily take and send relevant pictures for the project. Another possible reason for the project-related pictures posted by the Americans was that the
Team Three client (which was agriculture-based) was on a topic that was especially appropriate for taking pictures, as the American university is surrounded by farms. Teams 140
One and Two, however, did not have clients that would be as conducive for pictures from the Americans.
Participation Summary
Table 13 provides an overview of the different components that can be considered in participation: the total number of postings, the percent of postings from the Thai students, the percent of messages with some social content, the number and percent of purely social messages, and the number and percent of social pictures.
Table 13
Overview of Participation Factors in Three Teams Studied
Team Total Percent Percent Number Percent Number Percent number student messages purely purely social social student postings with social social pictures pictures postings from social messages messages Thais content
One 58 30% 90% 10 17% 8 100%
Two 51 35% 86% 10 20% 39 89%
Three 80 38% 71% 10 13% 18 49%
Looking at Table 13, it can be seen that the three teams studied were relatively
similar in many of these categories. In general, the Thai students posted approximately
one third of the total student communication. Also, all teams included quite a bit of social
content in their messages. The lowest percent of messages with social content was found 141 in Team Three, with 71% of their messages having at least some social content, which is still quite high. The highest percent of messages with social content was 90%, in Team
One. All the teams posted ten purely social messages. The areas with the most variation were (a) the total number of student postings, with Team Three being higher than Teams
One and Two; (b) the number of social pictures, with Team Two having more than
Teams One and Three; and (c) the percent of social pictures posted, with Team Three having a lower percent.
This participation analysis has shown that teams that formed relationships posted a fairly large number of messages in general and communication was fairly frequent and consistent across all teams, though communication did decrease after the GLC classes ended. Even Team Two, which had the lowest number of total student messages posted, averaged 8.5 postings per week in the six weeks of communication. This is still a considerable amount of communication. In all of the teams, the American students posted more messages than did the Thais, but the Thai students still did post approximately half as many messages as the Americans.
These teams included a large amount of social content in their messages, whether mixed in messages with project work or in purely social messages. Looking at the average percentages of purely social messages, however, there is only a very small difference between the American and Thai students. Also, all teams posted social pictures, though the number varied across teams. While Team One posted only eight pictures, all of them were social. For these teams, then, frequent participation with social content and social pictures was useful in helping them form relationships. All three teams 142 posted social pictures or purely social messages when they entered the intranet, for holidays, and after the video conference.
While these factors provide a snapshot of the participation of the three teams in this study, a more in-depth look at the students’ discourse is necessary for a deeper understanding of how the students built relationships through their computer-mediated communication. That analysis follows in the next section.
The Nature of the Discourse used in Intercultural Virtual Relationships
A qualitative discourse analysis was conducted in this study to understand the nature of the discourse that students from the U.S. and Thailand used to form relationships through their computer-mediated communication. The students’ discourse was supplemented with student and faculty interviews and with class observations.
Discourse analysis was chosen for analysis as it allows the researcher to focus on authentic language and what it achieves, specifically how it is used “flexibly to achieve particular functions and effects” within a certain context (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 6).
This discourse analysis followed the steps outlined for analysis of computer-mediated communication suggested by Herring (2004).
The interpretation of the data was guided by the constructivist learning principles discussed in Chapter Two. Constructivism focuses on the social aspect of learning and posits that communication, collaboration, and interactions construct meaning and that guidance by peers or adults is crucial (Swan, 2005). Also guiding analysis were the concepts of social presence theory and transactional presence theory, in addition to research on virtual learning communities and intercultural relationships. 143
Analysis revealed that the discourse of the three teams performed one main function: through their discourse the 13 participants all portrayed themselves as considerate individuals. Consideration is a trait not discussed in the literature on virtual relationships, though it is similar to a trait termed “text empathy” by Suler (2004, p. 38) and “concern” as discussed by Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 125). In this study, the term considerate refers to “having or marked by regard for the needs or feelings of others…
Characterized by careful thought; deliberate” (American heritage dictionary, 2004).
Being considerate thus signifies that the students thought about what they did and said in such a way that they were thinking about the needs and feelings of their teammates. The literature discusses many techniques that communicators can engage in to build relationships through CMC. While these techniques did appear in the discourse of the students in this study, the techniques themselves were not as important as what they represented, which was consideration.
Since different students had different personalities, they conveyed consideration in different ways. Some ways students showed consideration were offering help, being polite, being appreciative, working hard for the project, including friendly and casual greetings and closings, including social content in work-related messages, showing interest in teammates’ lives, and thinking about intercultural teammates’ language needs.
While some of the differences between how students showed consideration were perhaps culturally-based, others were likely based on other factors.
Across teams, conveying consideration was accomplished by senders saying they were interested in their teammates and their culture, showing support for their teammates, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. The remainder of this chapter 144 will discuss how the students showed consideration and look at similarities and differences.
Team One: Consideration
This section describes the discourse of the students on Team One, examining how they showed consideration for each other. The students on Team One were outgoing. In one posting, Eva described herself, Elizabeth, and her Thai teammates as “energetic, fun, and full of life.” In her posted bio sketch on October 19th, Elizabeth described herself as
“outgoing” and “expressive.” While Koo and Ping do not offer descriptions of
themselves in their postings, in interviews, Eva and Elizabeth described Koo as
“responsible, hard-working, outgoing, and warm,” Ping as “very friendly, outgoing, and
hard-working,” and both teammates as “supportive.” During the Skype video conference
Koo and Ping were very outgoing and expressive, unlike many of the Thai students, who
were more reserved and seemed nervous.
Eva commented in an interview that her main goal with the course was to “be
friends” and then after that to “get the project done” and she thought that the Thai
students felt the same. To Eva, having fun Thai partners was crucial to the success of the
project: “A bad partner in Thailand would ruin everything.” She said that it helped
working with the Thai students online before going to Thailand so that they were friends
before working together in person. Eva commented that their team was very strong and
worked very well together. She described their team personality as being “fun, goofy,
hard-working, and considerate,” and her view on why the team worked well was that it
was “neat meeting them online because we were so pumped.” Eva described Koo as the 145 project leader, though she said everyone worked hard. She felt that Ping’s role was to do much of the research, while Koo posted it.
While all students showed consideration in Team One in their CMC, Koo and Eva showed the most consideration, while Elizabeth and Ping showed slightly less. The first way that students could show consideration was by showing interest in each other and their cultures.
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture
Brown and Levinson (1987) discuss the importance of communicators showing interest in each other in order to build relationships to show that the communicator notices or is thinking about the other person. Byram (1997) discusses the importance of interest in developing intercultural understanding. This concept was also important in the discourse of the students in this study. Within showing interest in teammates and their culture, students could express interest and excitement, respond to messages, ask questions about teammates, ask about or explain absences in communication, or use discourse that showed they felt a connection to their teammates.
Expressing interest and excitement.
Brown and Levinson (1987) and Suler (2004) note that excitement and expression play an important role in conveying interest. In this study, the students on Team One showed a great amount of excitement and slightly less interest in each other. The Team
One students who showed the most interest in their CMC were the Americans. They showed interest in the Thai students themselves, the Thai culture, and excitement in working together. Eva especially showed excitement and interest in the Thais. In her bio sketch she wrote: 146
I am really looking forward to our trip to Thailand. We have been learning so
much about the culture and language, and that just adds on to my excitement.
Being able to experience all that first hand, will be an unforgettable experience….
When I travel to Thailand I look forward to learning about the culture and
religion, and experience traditional cooking. I am excited to get a well known
Thai massage, and going shopping! … My GLC partner and I have two Thai
teammates who we are so excited to meet! We hope we work well together, and
look forward to getting to become good friends!
Eva’s expressions indicating she wanted to be friends showed her interest.
In a message about the first time Eva and Elizabeth called the Thai students, Eva was clearly excited and wrote:
well we called Koo last week, and it went very well. we communicated very well,
and our excitement with working together i believe, is mutual. Elizabeth and I
practiced a bit of our thai, and laughed at our efforts. ha, ha. we discussed a bit of
the project but ended the conversation saying we look forward to working with
these Thai teamates, and that we will be talking again very soon. Overall very
good conversation, elizabeth and i believe we will be extremely successful with
our project. weeee:)
Expressions such as “weeee:)” showed Eva’s excitement, as did her humor with “ha, ha.”
Eva also expressed excitement about seeing the Thai students. She wrote in the message before she arrived in Thailand, “Looking forward to seeing you guys! let me know if you need to know more! see you soon!” In a message after the video conference,
Eva wrote: 147
hello ping and koo! elizabeth and i were soooo excited to see you. just jumping
with joy! you both seem energetic, fun, and full of life! just the perfect match with
us, as well as dedicated to our project, and making it the best one possible! so
elizabeth and i were wondering what you guys like to do for fun, where you like
to go, and just some interesting things about you. we are excited to see and do
everything there! we are both very outgoing and want to experience thialand and
its best!:)only 2 weeks left, i cant wait. this is a picture of my two roomates and i
before we went out to a party. i am in the white. cant wait to see you boys!
Eva was so excited that she said she would send a picture of herself with her friends.
Elizabeth also expressed her interest in Thailand and in her new Thai teammates in her bio sketch:
I am very interested in learning more about the world. I consider myself
culturally sensitive and aware, but know there is much more to learn. I know that
Thailand and USA are friendly towards each other, but don’t know the entire
political scene. It seems like there are good relationships between the two and I
can’t wait to visit Thailand and see the way that people respond to Americans. I
look forward to meeting all of you and working with you on the project.
Elizabeth showed she was interested in Thailand politically and in the Thai people. A picture she sent also showed Elizabeth and Eva’s excitement. The picture was a joke of themselves being arrested with the title of the picture being “busted!” In an interview,
Eva indicated that the picture was meant to set a fun tone for the project.
Later in the course, Elizabeth commented on her excitement with her team after the video conference: “I am glad that we took the time to chat instead of getting to 148 business like some of the other teams, even though we will still do very well on the project.” The video conference made quite an impact on Elizabeth. Directly after seeing
Koo and Ping on screen and talking with them, she told Eva that she was so excited that she would send them a picture of her dog.
In a different message, Elizabeth wrote, “Looking forward to working with you in
Thailand!” and signed off a message shortly before she left, “See you in a couple days!”
Elizabeth signed her message after the video conference, “Hope to talk to you soon!” She signed an early posting, “Thank you and thinking of the two of you often.” These all showed her excitement at seeing her Thai teammates.
The Thai students showed less excitement, with Koo showing more than Ping. In his first posting, Koo stated, “We are very excited to work with you guys in this project.
Don’t forget to share us some of your pics! How do we look like????(Don’t give us a comment if it is not so good)LOL.” In a message in which he posted the team’s research proposal he wrote, “Let’s get it started!” In his first message after the video conference,
Koo wrote, “how’s it goin’?? yeah we are sooo excited too and it was very nice chattin’ with you.Also, thanks for sharing us some pics!!!” In his final posting, before the
American students arrived in Thailand, he closed his message, “see you soon. bye bye.”
He signed another message, “Take care c ya sooooon.” While he expressed excitement at seeing his teammates, Koo did not mention anything about American culture or Thai-
American relations.
Ping did not express interest in hearing about America or general interest in working with Americans but he did show excitement at meeting them, “I’m lookin forward to seeing u guys soon!” and “Anyway, excited to see u guys soon :)” 149
Team One had a large amount of discourse showing excitement and interest.
Many of the expressions of excitement for both the American and Thai students occurred in the closings of the postings, and more expressions of excitement occurred closer to the time that the American students would be traveling to Thailand. The Americans expressed more interest in culture than did the Thai students. This is likely because the focus of the project was on Thailand and the American students were excited to travel there.
Responding to messages.
Research has indicated the importance of responding to a communicator in order to build relationships through CMC (Cassell & Tversky, 2005; Ware, 2005). Team One students responded to most, though not all, of each other’s social and project-related messages. In general, communicators responding to postings can either repeat the question or piece of conversation they are responding to, or they can simply respond without directly referring to any questions or statements. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that repeating a partner’s language shows that the partner is being heard and contributes to relationship building. Similarly, Herring (2001) states that recipients demonstrate connectedness and listening when they link new messages to previous ones or quote from previous communication. Korenman and Wyatt (1996) had a different finding, that when messages begin with an answer to a question without re-stating the question connectedness is demonstrated.
In this team the students did not repeat the questions they were answering and did not explicitly refer to why they were providing information, thus supporting Korenman and Wyatt’s (1996) suggestion that connectedness is demonstrated by not re-stating 150 questions. For example, when Koo asked if an organization Eva and Elizabeth researched worked with a certain type of client, Eva never said she was answering his question, but she did provide the information he asked about. Another example of not repeating questions is when in his first message Koo asked the American students to share pictures of themselves, and later Elizabeth posted a picture of herself with her boyfriend and of herself for Halloween. Eva also said she would post a picture, but forgot to attach it.
When the Thai students wrote that they needed more information on advertising for the client, the American students did not repeat any requests. Messages by Eva and
Elizabeth after that request provided information on advertising, though Eva and
Elizabeth did not state they were answering the Thai students’ request. Eva wrote, “ive been researching ways to advertise” and in a different message included the subject line
“more information, advertising stuff.” Elizabeth stated in a message, “While searching the reports I found an article on advertising.” After the Thai students asked for information on campaigns and events, Elizabeth provided resources, “Here are some websites that I looked at that I think we could use to look at some other campaigns and events.”
Elizabeth did refer to their request for more information on advertising in one message:
We can learn from these advertising examples to get ideas. One of the strongest
examples promoting online, however I remember that you had said before that
your online resources were not very strong, maybe that is something we could
work on. 151
While most information that the American students sent seemed to meet the Thai students’ needs, some of the information the American students provided was not what the Thai students were looking for. After reading a posting from the Americans, Koo pointed out in one message: “Futhermore, we have to thank to you guys again for your hard working. I’ve checked the website out already and it is not quite related to our purpose because…” It is interesting to note that Koo used “not quite related” as a way to soften his criticism of the information found by the Americans.
There were two instances when the American students did not respond to the
Thais. In one instance, the Thai students asked for the information again and still the
Americans did not answer the question. Another time, the American students never commented on the only picture sent by the Thai students, which Koo posted in his first message. There was another instance where it looked like the American students did not respond to a request by their Thai teammates. In an interview, though, Eva indicated that she did contact the organization requested by Koo, received information from them in the mail, and took it to share with her teammates in Thailand.
Many of the responses from Koo and Ping were about how much they appreciated the information sent by Elizabeth and Eva. Koo and Ping also thanked Eva and Elizabeth for pictures they sent.
In addition to thanking the American students, Koo and Ping responded to the
American students’ requests for information. When Eva requested information about the client, Koo sent information from interviews with the client, but he never explicitly stated that he was responding to her request. Similarly, when Elizabeth requested more detailed information, Ping wrote that they would have it soon: “we r going to meet the client 152 tomorrow and hope to finish our reports] by tomorrow.” In one case the American students had asked the Thai students for more information from the client, and Ping informed them that he was not able to find the information yet, but he did send more information later.
There were four instances where the Thai students did not respond to the
American students. The Thais did not write anything about the bio sketches or early pictures posted by either Eva or Elizabeth, and they did not comment on the mutual team ground rules that Eva had posted and asked for feedback on. All of these postings by the
Americans were from before the Thai students began using the intranet. It is possible that the Thai students never read what was written before they started communicating.
The responses on Team One, then, largely involved the Thai teammates requesting information from the Americans, the Americans providing the information without explicitly repeating the question or request, and the Thai students thanking them for the information. In some cases, the American students sent pictures and the Thai students thanked them. Both the American and Thai students had occasions where they did not respond to each other’s messages.
Asking questions about teammates.
As Suler (2004) points out, asking teammates how they are doing can show concern and facilitate the building of text relationships. The importance of asking questions in relationship building through CMC has been discussed as well by Cassell and Tversky (2005) and Ware (2005). Byram (1997) also notes that when communicators indicate an interest in their partner’s daily life, they exhibit more intercultural understanding. 153
The Thai students asked more questions that showed concern for the recipient than did the American students. Koo asked how the American students were doing, such as “Anyway, how are things over there?”; “How u guys doing?? we’re just ok over here. lol.”; “Hey how’s it goin’?”; and “How have you been doing so far?” Ping began one message, “Yo!! How r u guys doin? we r doin so well here.”
Eva asked Koo and Ping about themselves in her message, “so elizabeth and i were wondering what you guys like to do for fun, where you like to go, and just some interesting things about you.” This was posted after she spoke with Ping and Koo in the video conference. Koo responded by saying that they “have many fun places to go like clubbin’, chillin’ out kinda stuff.” Elizabeth did not ask any questions about how the Thai students were doing, though she did send pictures and share information about herself.
Thus, on Team One the Thai students showed concern through asking about how the American students were more than the American students did, but neither group asked many questions showing concern about their teammates.
Asking about or explaining absences from communication.
Another way to demonstrate interest in teammates and thus consideration is to ask where someone has been if there are any lapses in communication. Roberts, R. (2004) notes that asking about someone after an absence and checking-in after an absence facilitates relationship building virtually. This happened one time in Team One. Koo expressed concern when Elizabeth and Eva had not been communicating online directly to the Thai students for six days: “How have you been doing so far? we haven’t heard anything from you guys for a while. We hope everything is ok over there.” He then went on to request that the American students look into a local organization, offered to answer 154 any questions, and signed off with his formal Thai name. Eva and Elizabeth did not respond to this question directly. They did continue to share project-related information in their postings, but they never addressed the fact that they had been away from the intranet.
Koo’s use of his formal name is interesting, as Thais rarely use their formal given names and go by nicknames instead. While one possible explanation was that Koo was frustrated with the American students, the Thai teaching assistant felt that he was likely not frustrated, but instead was just trying to write what he thought was a proper letter.
Apparently Koo using his formal name did not affect the relationships of team members.
Eva indicated in an interview that she had not even noticed that Koo had used his formal name. Eva speculated that perhaps he used his formal name without thinking about it. She likened it to her own use of her full name (first and last) in a message toward the end of their communication. She said that she occasionally signs her first and last name and that it did not mean anything.
Koo explained one absence in his CMC. In his first message, he commented about the absence of Ping, saying that Ping would introduce himself later: “My name is Koo and my partner is Ping. He is not here today but I’m sure he will definitely introduce himself to you guys again.” The American students did not comment on the absence of
Ping from the first message.
Thus, the only student who showed consideration through explaining or asking about absences is the Thai student Koo, through his asking about Eva and Elizabeth’s absence and his explanation of Ping’s absence.
Expressing a connection with teammates. 155
Expressing a connection with teammates is another way that the students showed concern for each other. Demonstrating connectedness is a key element to transactional presence (Shin, 2003). Similarly, Rovai (2002a) discusses the importance of connectedness in his work on virtual learning communities. All the students on Team
One were similar in their use of personalized and friendly discourse to express a connection. Using personalized terms of address has been found to play an important role in building relationships (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Korenman & Wyatt, 1996; Ware,
2005). Bretag (2006) notes that phrases such as “let’s” can show inclusion.
Eva used some personalized greetings (e.g., “hello ping and koo!:)”; “to koo and ping”; “Hello!!”), although she had messages with no greeting as well. Her closings were personalized, such as, “Love”; “hope you guys have a great week! Elizabeth and Eva”;
“cant wait to see you boys! goodbye!”; “have a good day!!!”; and “see you soon!” She referred to the Thai students as “you guys”; “you boys”; and “Thai teammates.” Eva used informal language in her social postings and more formal language in her project-related portions of postings, thus conveying the idea that she saw her Thai teammates as friends and that she cared about them.
Koo used his teammates’ names (“Hello Eva and Elizabeth,”; “to Eva and
Elizabeth”) or referred to the American students as “u guys” and “GLC Team Members.”
He used greetings such as “Hey again..,” “hey there..,” “hello,” and “Dear GLC Team
Members,” though he did have one message with no greeting. At the beginning of the project he invited his American teammates to look over information he posted by saying,
“Let’s get it started!” After the video conference, Koo changed the way he closed his messages. Before the video conference, he closed with the more formal “Best regards” or 156
“Regards.” After the video conference, he closed with the more personalized closings of
“c ya soooon”; “Take care,”; “see you soon!”; “bye bye”; and “hope to hear from you soon.” He usually signed his name in his postings.
Elizabeth used the Thai students’ names (“Hi Ping and Koo, Hey Guys!”; “Hi
Ping and Koo”) or opened with “Hi Guys,” or “Hi Guys!” Closings she used include,
“Thank you and thinking of the two of you often,”; “Hope to talk to you soon!”; “See you in a couple days!”; and “Till then.” She did not include any greeting or closing for the pictures she posted at the beginning of the project.
Ping used his teammates’ names as well, such as, “to Eva and Elizabeth, Yo!!
How r u guys doin? we r doin so well here.” Other greetings he used include “Hi!!” and
“u r very pretty princes!!!!!” (referring to Elizabeth’s Halloween costume). Ping referred to the American students as “u guys.” He ended his messages with upbeat closings such as “:)”; “I’m lookin forward to seeing u guys soon!”; and “Anyway, excited to see u guys soon :)” and he always signed his name in his postings.
A final phenomenon that showed consideration in the team was when two students’ names were on the signature. In his final posting, Ping posted a message asking
Eva and Elizabeth for more information and signed the posting, “Anyway, excited to see u guys soon :) Ping and Koo.” In the message posted by Koo wishing the American students good luck on their final exams, the Thai students signed “take care, Koo &
Ping.” In the Thai messages, the message writer signed his name first.
Two students signing one message happened in Team One with the Americans two times, both with Eva. The first was when Eva posted a message shortly after the Thai students began communicating: “Thankyou very much, hope you guys have a great 157 week! Elizabeth and Eva :)” The other time this happened with the American students was when Eva had to re-post some information, and she again signed “Elizabeth and
Eva.” In the American messages, the message writer put her name last, not first as in the
Thai examples.
All students on Team One used their teammates’ names in their messages, they all had friendly closings, and they all referred to each other as “guys.” Greetings were usually casual and personalized, though not every message began with a greeting. While students generally wrote their names in their closings, the only student to always do so was Ping, but he wrote only three messages. The only student to change his greetings or closings throughout the time they communicated in the intranet was Koo, who moved to less formal closings after the video conference. Suler (2004) notes that changes in closings can provide clues to the development of relationships. Both the Thai and
American students signed a teammate’s name to their messages, conveying a feeling of connection in the whole group.
Showing Support for Teammates
Showing support for teammates was also found to be important in this study and is discussed in the literature (Paulus & Roberts, 2006; Roberts, R. 2004). Byram (1997) notes that language that indicates that a communicator values the work of partners is one way of exhibiting intercultural understanding. In Team One, students showed support by offering assistance or information, expressing appreciation, expressing encouragement, offering praise, giving updates, and being thoughtful.
158
Offering assistance or information.
Offering assistance or providing information is one way that students can show support and consideration for their teammates. Bretag (2006) found offers or promises in the CMC she analyzed. Parks and Floyd (1996) found that one way to build relationships virtually was through sharing work, while Cassell and Tversky (2005) note the importance of volunteering in online communities. Hsu, Ju, Yen, and Chang (2007) also found that increased knowledge sharing indicates trust and an emotional connection.
The student on Team One who made the most offers was Koo. He did so considerately, such as “If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to let us know at anytime.” He offered to send more information or to answer questions many times. In one message he wrote, “If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to let us know at anytime.” Or later, he wrote:
And again if you guys need clearification or explaination about the topic or
anything, please let us know because we do not know whether you feel uneasy
with some points or not. Just frankly tell us so that we can work things out
together.
Koo had many direct offers for assistance, but he also had less direct ones, “Also, I attached sub-research questions for you guys again to be used as guideline questions to research” or “I’ve attached here summary of findings.” Another way Koo expressed his consideration was that he provided the American students with the information they needed for the project and in general worked very hard for the project.
Both American students on Team One also offered help. Elizabeth offered resources that she found: “Here are some websites that I looked at that I think we could 159 use to look at some other campaigns.” About materials she found, she stated, “I will bring them to our meeting.” Elizabeth provided a considerable amount of information for the project, and she offered it to the Thai students in a very kind and non-imposing manner.
For example, she wrote, “Hi Guys, I was just looking for some last bits of research to bring with us and I found … It is just an idea, I am bring the magazine so maybe we could get some more ideas” or “We can learn from these advertising examples to get ideas to help [our client]. One of the strongest examples promoting online, however I remember that you had said before that your online resources were not very strong, maybe that is something we could work on.” Elizabeth’s offers of information showed she was not trying to impose her ideas on her teammates. Elizabeth posted a large amount of information to help advance the project.
Eva made offers as well, for example, “let me know if you need to know more!”
She also offered the team action plan and ground rules to Koo and Ping to look over and make any changes: “here are some action plans, and some ground rules, that elizabeth and i came up with, hopefully it looks good, and we will add or change them, if appropriate for you.:)” Offering them the ground rules and action plan for their review was unique in the three teams. The action plan and ground rules were meant to be collaborative documents for the American and Thai students to create together, specifying expectations and timelines. The other teams wrote their action plans and ground rules independently and perhaps shared them, but did not offer to collaborate on their construction. Eva also offered to bring Koo and Ping materials that she had picked up, “i went to different places here, and picked up numerous pamplets articles and papers in hopes of finding …, to get informed. these pamphlets contain very good information, 160 and we can take them, and use them to try to….” One of the strongest ways Eva showed her consideration was through how hard she worked in the project and how much information she provided for Koo and Ping.
Ping did not make any offers in his postings.
The students on Team One who offered to help were Koo and Eva, with Koo offering to provide guidance (likely because of his role as team leader) and Eva offering to find more information (perhaps due to her personality). Koo, Eva, and Elizabeth offered information they had found, although Eva offered the least. She provided information, but generally did not specifically offer it to the Thai students. Eva, Koo, and
Elizabeth worked very hard in the project and posted quite a bit of information. Ping, with his few messages, did not post project information. Eva indicated in an interview that she felt that Ping had done considerable work on the project, but that Koo posted it as he was the team leader and was slightly more outgoing than Ping.
Expressing appreciation.
One of the ways the students in Team One showed their support was stating their appreciation. The importance of appreciation has been noted in other studies (Bretag,
2006; Cassell & Tversky, 2005). On Team One, Koo was the student who used the most
Thank you’s. He stated, “Thank you very much”; “Futhermore, we have to thank to you guys again for your hard working”; “thank you very much for your fancy princess pic.”;
“thank you again”; “thank you very much for your kind assistance”; and “Thank you in advance!! you guys been working very hard as well.” Ping also voiced appreciation:
“Anyway, thank you very much for the informations of the SWOT and 4Ps”; “THank you ....”; and “thank you very much for the information. it’s pretty good..” Ping posted a 161 thank you message in each of his three messages on the intranet. Elizabeth and Eva posted only one thank you each. Elizabeth wrote in a message closing, “Thank you and thinking of the two of you often” and Eva wrote, “Thankyou very much.”
The Thai students, then, expressed much more appreciation than did the American students. Koo and Ping thanked the American students for their information, hard work, and pictures, while Elizabeth and Eva each wrote a general thank you in a closing.
Expressing encouragement.
Encouragement can strengthen virtual relationships, with phrases such as “don’t stress yourself” (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 122). This team included little encouragement, however. The only student on Team One who expressed encouragement was Koo. He wished the American students luck on their finals: “And i hope you will do well in your final!” and “Good luck on your final exams!!!!!!!!!!! hope you guys get straight A.” Koo also told the American students not to stress out: “I hope you guys are doing ok. And hey
Don’t be too panic to get ready for the trip. we just don’t want you guys to get heart attack before we meet. LOL” No other students in Team One expressed encouragement.
Offering praise.
Praise can contribute to community or relationship building (Bretag, 2006;
Cassell & Tversky, 2005). Brown and Levinson (1987) note the importance of making partners feel admired. On Team One, though, similar to encouragement, there was little praise. The praise that was expressed in Team One came from the Thai students. Ping wrote two notes of praise, one regarding the project and one about a Halloween picture that Elizabeth sent. About the project, he wrote, “Yo, thank you very much for the information. it’s pretty good..” About the picture he wrote, “u r very pretty princes!!!!!” 162
Koo wrote a note of praise about the information that the American students sent: “I’m sure we could use information you guys been collected.” He also said toward the end of their online communication, “you guys been working very hard as well.” The American students in Team One did not praise their Thai teammates.
Offering apologies.
Although Bretag (2006) found that apologies were used in virtual relationships in order to avoid disagreements, Team One had no apologies from any student.
Giving updates.
Roberts, R. (2004) notes the importance of messages indicating that students were concerned about their partners. This can be done through updates. In Team One, both
Thai and American students updated each other on the project, but the Thai students provided the most updates. Ping wrote, “we r going to meet M plus tomorrow and hope to finish SWOT of M Plus by tomorrow. so, we can see the differences and similarities..” In another message he explained not being able to provide the information he had promised to Eva and Elizabeth: “after we have talk to our client, we could collect just few data coz the project manager wasn’t there.. anyway, i collects their printed media and magazines. they are helpful....” Both of Ping’s updates referred to him and his Thai teammate.
Koo updated the students as well, on three occasions. His first update was “and the third interview will be conducted tomorrow(Nov 02,2006)about SWOT analysis and I will post the findings about what we have done as soon as possible. with pictures of where [the client] is located and their activities.” Though Koo referred to sending pictures in the future, the Thai students never did, and the American students did not ask about them. In another message Koo wrote, “And I will post our SWOT analysis. now it’s on 163 process. I hope you guys are doing ok.” The final update by Koo was, “Here, we’re trying to finish the executive summary outline and still collecting data.” One of Koo’s updates referred to his Thai teammate (“we’re trying to…”), while the other two just referred to him.
The only update by the American students was by Eva: “this is all i have for now..perhaps more to come later.”
Thus, the Thai students updated the American students much more than the
Americans updated the Thais. The Thais referred to their Thai teammates in three of their five updates, while in her update the American student Eva just referred to herself.
Being thoughtful.
Brown and Levinson (1987) note that relationships are facilitated when communicators demonstrate concern and show that they want what is best for their partners. This can be shown through kind or polite requests, for example using “please”
(Roberts, R., 2004) or hedging (Belz, 2003; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Roberts, R.,
2004), writing kind remarks (Roberts, R., 2004), using collaborative discourse, and including explanations for potentially confusing information (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
Together, these qualities convey that the communicator is thoughtful. Thoughtful is defined as “Having or showing heed for the well-being or happiness of others and a propensity for anticipating their needs or wishes” (American heritage dictionary, 2004);
“Given to or chosen or made with heedful anticipation of the needs and wants of others”
(Merriam-Webster dictionary, 2006); or “Showing thought or consideration for others;
considerate, kindly” (Oxford English dictionary, 1989). The essence of thoughtfulness,
then, is communicators thinking about their communication partners and being kind. 164
“Thoughtful” was also a term that was used by the student Krista to describe her Thai teammates and was used by the second rater to describe the teams’ communication. This thoughtfulness was achieved in a variety of ways by the students on Team One.
The Team One student who was the most thoughtful was Koo. One of the ways
Koo showed consideration was in the way he requested information, such as his use of
“please”: “could you please find…?”; “please help us work this out.”; “Could you please find more information specifically on…”; or “if some places you guys have been to have some kinda events that …. Pls get some info. of it, i’m sure we will have to use it to help.” He was also considerate in his indirect requests: “And we hope you get some ideas about this issue in the Stated.”; “So, It would be good if you could”; and “Anyway, we’ve found an interesting organization located in your area which is … and we’d like to share it. here is its website; …. You can check it out. and this is contact number.” Koo made a number of requests, using “please” and polite grammatical structures in both his direct and indirect requests.
Koo’s consideration was particularly apparent in one case where he appeared to be frustrated about not receiving information from the American students about something he had asked for. He began his message thanking Eva and Elizabeth for their help, moved to updating them on what he was working on, and then affirmed the usefulness of the work Eva and Elizabeth were doing. He then went to what could be considered the point of this posting, which was to remind Eva and Elizabeth to visit an organization he found that might be useful for their client. He had requested they contact the organization almost two weeks earlier, but the American students did not report on if 165 they visited the organization or not. He ended the message by thanking them again and acknowledging their hard work:
hey there..
thank you very much for your kind assistance. Here, we’re trying to finish the
executive summary outline and still collecting data. I’m sure we could use
information you guys been collected. One more thing we don’t wanna miss is that
the info. about…. Please let us know what you got from them could be any sort of
information. Thank you in advance!! you guys been working very hard as well.
see you soon.
bye bye
Koo
Any frustration Koo might have felt at that lack of response from the Americans is not evident in this message.
Finally, Koo was also thoughtful when he explained the project to his American teammates: “I’m not that sure how much you guys know about it so I think I should introduce it.” He was clearly thinking of the students and what they knew and did not know about the project. An instance where Koo was not as thoughtful is when he did not comment on the picture that he posted, including not identifying which student in the picture was him and which was Ping.
Eva was thoughtful as well. Eva’s requests were considerate, such as “Could you please send us….” She also showed consideration when she wrote notes such as “we hope we work well together”; “look forward to getting to become good friends”; and
“hope you guys have a great week.” When Eva posted some information, she let the Thai 166 students know that they could revise any information by using this collaborative discourse: “hope this is good for you, let us know your ideas and well put it all together!!!” Another example of collaborative discourse is when she offers team documents to the Thai students to revise: “here are some action plans, and some ground rules, that elizabeth and i came up with, hopefully it looks good, and we will add or change them, if appropriate for you.:)” Also, when she posted a picture of herself and her cousin, Eva briefly described it.
Elizabeth also used kind words through statements such as, “I can tell that we are going to get along really well.” In her one message where she requested information,
Elizabeth did so kindly: “Also, do you think that you could send ….” As discussed earlier, Elizabeth showed that she was willing to collaborate with the Thai students and not impose her opinion on them, for example when she wrote “Hi Guys, I was just looking for some last bits of research to bring with us and I found … It is just an idea, I am bring the magazine so maybe we could get some more ideas” and in a different message, “maybe that is something we could work on.” One technique to show consideration that Elizabeth did not use was explaining the pictures that she sent to her
Thai teammates, similar to Koo. For example, for one of the first pictures she sent she wrote simply, “This is Eva and I on our main street at Ohio University, Court Street.”
Explaining the pictures for her Thai teammates, who had never been to campus, would have been considerate.
Ping was thoughtful when he was kind in his requests: “Could u guys please” and
“is it possible.” 167
The ways that Team One used to show thoughtfulness included students being kind and polite in their requests, using collaborative discourse, and explaining information. Also found was that a thoughtful Thai student expressed his frustration kindly, which Cassell and Tversky (2005) note is a sign of a virtual community. All the
Team One students were kind and polite in their requests, but the American students included more collaborative discourse.
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind
Suler (2004) notes that effective communicators in text relationships write messages that show their text empathy, one way being anticipating and meeting the recipients’ needs. Communicating with the teammates’ language in mind can show consideration for teammates communicating in a non-native language. For example,
American students could use Thai and modify their discourse for non-native speakers, or
Thai speakers could use and explain Thai words. Eva and Elizabeth tried to speak some
Thai in a phone conversation with Koo, as they discussed in an intranet posting. The Thai students did not speak any Thai in their postings or use any Thai words.
In an interview, Eva indicated that she did not consciously think about modifying her language to meet her Thai teammates’ possible language needs, though she noted that in general whenever she speaks with non-native English speakers she tries not to use slang or words they might not know. Having a number of international friends and family members and being fluent in another language, she said she did this naturally. Also, Koo and Ping’s English was quite advanced, she felt, so she did not need to modify her
English more than usual. 168
Consideration Summary Team One
Team One employed a variety of techniques to convey consideration, with some used relatively equally by both the American and Thai students, some used more by the
Americans, some used more by the Thais, and one technique not used on this team.
Certain characteristics seem to be integral for this team. All the students responded to most of each other’s messages, though they did so in slightly different ways based on their roles in the project. The Thais requested information more, the Americans provided it, and the Thais expressed their appreciation. The Thais did not respond to any messages that had been posted before they started using the intranet. All the students also used discourse to express a connection with each other, but with some differences. They all used their teammates’ names and referred to each other as “guys,” and they all generally used personalized greetings and closings. All the Team One students offered assistance or information, yet there are differences apparently based on personalities and course design. All students also used thoughtful discourse, with all being kind in their requests and the Americans using more collaborative discourse.
Differences in showing consideration were apparent by culture in Team One. The
American students expressed more interest and excitement in the Thai students and culture. This is likely due to course design. They apparently communicated with the teammates’ language in mind more than did the Thai students as well. They used Thai in a phone conversation and Eva modified her English for the Thais. However, as no Thai students were interviewed, it is difficult to determine modifications the Thai students may have made for the Americans. 169
The Thai students asked more questions about how the American students were doing. This could be a cultural or personality difference, since the course did not restrain the American students from asking about teammates. In addition, the Thais asked about the American students’ absence from the intranet. This is likely not due to personality, course, or cultural background, but rather to the fact that the Americans were the ones who did not communicate with the Thai students for a period of time and the Thais were waiting for information from the Americans. Another difference between the discourse of the Thais and Americans was that the Thais updated the American students more. The cause for this difference is likely that the Thai students were the project leaders and thus in a position to be updating on progress. Also, the Thai students expressed more appreciation, praise, and encouragement. As the American students had ample opportunity to praise, thank, and encourage the Thai students, this difference could be due to course roles, culture or personality. Finally, the Thais signed team names to their postings more than the Americans, and Eva hypothesized that the reason Ping had posted so few messages was that Koo was posting his information. This behavior is possibly culturally-based.
The only technique not found at all on this team was offering apologies. This could be due to the course, student personalities, or cultural background.
Of the four students on Team One, Koo is the student who used the greatest number of techniques to show concern. He also was described as the team leader by Eva.
Thus, team role could explain some of the differences in discourse found in this team.
As a team, Team One expressed more excitement than did Teams Two or Three, which may be due to the outgoing personalities of all the students on this team. They 170 seemed to rely on their excitement to express consideration more than did the other teams, which used other techniques.
In addition to demonstrating consideration in their discourse in what they said,
Team One students also engaged in technology-based strategies to form and maintain relationships. These included posting eight non-project related pictures; talking on the phone one time; communicating through a social networking site (facebook); communicating through the Skype video conference once; using humor markers, exclamation points, multiple question marks, and emoticons; using friendly headings for their postings; and using informal spellings/vocabulary.
While the discourse of Team One provides a useful beginning, analyzing the discourse of Team Two will provide more insight into how students convey consideration through computer-mediated communication.
Team Two: Consideration
Team Two had four outgoing teammates (three Americans and one Thai) and one more reticent teammate (Thai), according to interviews. The four outgoing students were
Amy, Neal, Megan, and Som, with Som being slightly less outgoing than the American students. Jum was described as the more quiet student in the group by her American teammates. In addition, she was described as very formal and polite and as the Thai team leader. Amy was described as the team leader for the Americans due to her strong organization skills. Together, both Amy and Jum (also well-organized) were described as the team co-leaders when the students worked together in Thailand. Jum’s father worked at their team client’s office, so she was a direct contact to the client. Both Jum and Som were described as being less outgoing than the American students, and Megan pointed 171 out in an interview that the Thai students were older by two or three years and behaved as such.
When asked about why their team worked as well as it did, Megan replied that she felt the team formed relationships because all the students were “really eager” to work together and get to know each other. For her specifically, it was her first “real project for a real person” and she wanted to do well. Another reason Megan thought the team worked well was that the personalities of all the students contributed to a good group, including Neal, who was effective at helping everyone work together, and Amy and Jum, who were the organizers. Their sharing of pictures and cultural/personal information also helped them form relationships. She described all the students as being “genuinely interested” in each other and described herself as feeling “giddy” with excitement about having Thai teammates. Megan did note, though, that she thinks it is difficult to get to know people through the intranet, which is why she made extra effort to get to know Jum and Som.
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture
Similar to Team One, in Team Two, students showed interest in each other by expressing interest and excitement, responding to messages, asking questions about teammates, asking about or explaining absences in communication, or using discourse that showed they felt a connection to their teammates.
Expressing interest and excitement.
Team Two students expressed considerable interest and excitement in meeting each other, with more expressions of interest and excitement coming from the Americans. 172
All the American students expressed approximately the same amount of excitement. Neal stated his excitement and interest in his bio sketch:
I am very excited to try new foods and experience the Thai cuisine. One of my
favorite things to do in the world is travel, which is why I look forward to coming
to Thailand and Chang Mai in particular. … When I travel, I like to experience
the distinct culture a different country offers and I know that Thailand and Chiang
Mai are both very culturally historic places. America lacks the history that
European and Asian countries have and I find that a very intriguing and appealing
aspect of their attraction. … I am always interested in meeting new friends and I
cannot wait to become friends with you. … What I look forward to the most when
we come to visit is meeting you guys. I feel confident that we can all benefit from
our uniqueness and will no doubt become good friends and have much success in
what we do. Please, do not hesitate to call me just to talk about anything. [(xxx)
xxx-xxxx]. I cannot wait to meet you!
Neal expressed his interest not only in meeting and becoming friends with his Thai teammates, but also in learning about the culture and food of Thailand.
In his first message after the Thai students began using the intranet (which the
American students often referred to as the database), Neal wrote: “Alright! Welcome to the Database [intranet]. So glad to see you guys on the database. We love your pictures and profiles. … We want to talk to you … Can’t wait to meet you guys.” Then in a message closer to the time they left, he wrote, 173
I think I speak for the whole team and even the whole class when I say that we’re
very excited to come and some of us are even growing fairly impatient. … We
really want to get to know you guys.
Other expressions of interest and excitement by Neal include “I want to know what kind of activities you guys typically enjoy” and “See you kids in a couple of days,” which he wrote in his last message.
Similar to Neal, Amy expressed her interest in Thailand in her bio sketch as well:
I am so excited to go back to Thailand though, because when I was there last, I
only visited Bangkok and cannot wait to experience Chiang Mai and other parts
of the country. To me, Thailand seems so culturally rich and much more
interesting than the United States. … I am looking forward to my GLC experience
in Thailand and hope that we will get to know each other and have a good time.
As our countries continue to progress their relationship with one another, I am
positive that we will as well and will aid in that process by creating connections
across the globe.
Amy also expressed excitement in the first message she wrote after the Thais began using the intranet:
Nice to meet you!... It is so nice to finally have you on the database. I love
learning about each of you and can’t wait to meet you. I’m sure we will have so
much fun together. … I am very excited to visit Chiang Mai and hope that you
will each show me what life is like for you there. Feel free to email or call me:
[xxxx]@hotmail.com or [(xxx)xxx-xxxx].
Another time Amy expressed excitement was after the video conference: 174
Hello teammates. It was lovely to speak to you using the video conference thing
tonight. I am so excited to meet you in person. We are going to have so much fun
and also help [the client] a lot too! Our 1st project that we worked on was a mock
project(pretend - just for practice) and we actually researched the Royal Flora
Ratchaphruek Exposition 2006. It was very interesting to learn about and I can’t
wait to go see it when we are in Thailand. I also liked the little picture you
attached in the letter about the exposition. … It was great talking to you.
In this message it can be seen that Amy was interested in Thai culture, as she referred to material she had learned in a previous project and expressed her excitement in seeing the exposition in the country. Amy also expressed interest after a Thai teammate sent pictures of the client, to which Amy replied: “The pictures of the site visit were very nice. I can’t wait to see it in person!” A final time Amy showed excitement was in her last message:
“Our trip is coming up so soon!”
Similar to Amy, Megan expressed her interest in experiencing another culture. In her bio sketch she stated:
I am also one who wants to think beyond the sheltered life and I am eager to
experience international relations that will last a lifetime. I became involved in the
Global Leadership Center after coming to Ohio University in an attempt to
become more culturally diverse. This Holiday Break, I am now going to travel to
Thailand to work on some incredible projects and I couldn’t be happier. It seems
many American citizens are fearful of international travel but I am not one of
these fearful individuals. Thailand, I believe, will truly be the “land of smiles.” 175
She expressed interest in going to Thailand so she could experience another culture, make friendships, and work on projects. Megan expressed excitement in the first message she wrote after the Thais began using the intranet:
We are almost finished with our semseter and we only have 2 weeks left. Then we
get to come to Thailand! Which we are all very excited about and we can’t wait to
meet you. … I hope to hear from you all soon and have a great week!
Approximately a week after the Thais began communicating she wrote, “We are counting down the time until we are there with you all!” When referring to personal pictures the
Thai students posted of themselves, she wrote, “I hope we all get to see mroe pictures soon!” During the video conference Megan expressed interest in the pictures Som had sent of the Thai festival Loi Kratong and thanked her for the photos. She also told them she liked the pictures of the client that they sent. Finally, as the Thailand trip approached, she wrote, “Looking forward to our meeting...2 weeks! :)” In an interview, Megan noted that the video conference contributed greatly to the project, calling it “really cool” because it helped her realize that Som and Jum were real people and sparked her interest in developing a personal bond with them.
Jum and Som expressed interest in developing friendships but did not express interest in learning about American culture. In her first message, Jum stated, “I want to be your friend.” After the video conference she wrote, “It is the very great time to talk to you today by video conference. It’s very fun.” And during the video conference Jum asked the American students to call her again. Jum also showed her interest in communicating online when she stated in a posting: “See ya again on the internet(oo)ho ho(laughing).” 176
Som also expressed interest in becoming friends when she wrote, “I do like to know all you guys” and shortly before the Americans’ trip she wrote, “Can’t wait anymore to meet you guys here.” After the video conference Som also showed her excitement: “Like Jum mention before, now I’m still exciting to talk to you guys that day.” Som was also excited during the video conference. She said to the American students, “I’m so exciting. My hand is shaking now” and told the American students that the pictures they sent were “cool.”
Thus, similar to Team One, in Team Two the American students expressed more interest and excitement than did the Thai students. The Americans showed more interest in Thai culture. Both the Thais and Americans included expressions of excitement at seeing their Thai teammates, but the Americans expressed this more. The Americans’ messages became more excited as their trip to Thailand approached and as they became more acquainted with their Thai teammates, as can be noted by comparing the discourse in their bio sketches with their more personalized discourse after the Thai students began communicating online. All the students became especially excited after the video conference. The events that prompted the most excited messages were when the Thais began using the intranet, the video conference, and the posting of pictures.
Responding to messages.
Both the American and Thai students responded to each other in this team, but the
Americans responded more than did the Thais. Megan was the student who responded to the most messages/questions. In half of her responses, she made it clear that she was answering a question: “But anyways...to answer your question about the SWOT and suggestions for [the client],I am not sure we can help you just yet.(But soon we can)”; 177
“To answer your question”; “Answer for Thai Teammates!”; and “Answers to Previous
Post on things you would like to get from us. These are the best answers we can provide for you.”
In other responses, Megan simply continued with the conversation without stating that she was responding. For example, when she responded to the joke Som made about bringing candy if a teammate is late to a meeting, she wrote, “I am glad you all are working on your own Ground Rules, and so far the ‘bring candy’ rule is working well for us.” Similarly, when she responded to Jum’s question about posting multiple pictures, she wrote, “But to post more than one picture at a time you have to…” In another example, she began a new message with an answer to Jum’s request to change the team’s name on the intranet and started the message with “Yes I just e-mailed my professor’s about the correction of the name on the database.” She then went on to respond to the information and pictures that the Thai students sent about the Loi Kratong festival, indicating that she had read what they sent, “And I looked up some information about that festival and it sounds very awesome!” After receiving information about when to try calling Som back,
Megan wrote, “We are hoping to call Som soon also.” In an interview Megan indicated that the team only talked to the Thai students one time. She found the phone call to be difficult because of the lack of visual cues. She felt the Thai students’ English proficiency was much better in person or through the intranet than it was on the phone, where they could not see each other’s eyes or gestures such as hand movements. Also, she felt the
American students’ rate of speaking was too fast for the Thais to understand when communicating through the phone. In person, Megan felt that Jum and Som’s English was “great.” 178
Amy also responded to messages. In one response she stated she would answer questions by beginning her response, “To answer some of your questions…” In her other two responses she did not state that she was responding, just continuing the conversation.
About the pictures her Thai teammates sent she wrote, “The pictures of the site visit were very nice. I can’t wait to see it in person!” And about the pictures and information about the Flora Exposition, she wrote:
Our 1st project that we worked on was a mock project(pretend - just for practice)
and we actually researched the Royal Flora Ratchaphruek Exposition 2006. It
was very interesting to learn about and I can’t wait to go see it when we are in
Thailand. I also liked the little picture you attached in the letter about the
exposition.
Amy’s consideration is evident in her taking the time to explain her previous exposure to the Flora Exposition and complimenting the picture.
Neal responded to the Thais one time by saying, “So glad to see you guys on the database. We love your pictures and profiles.”
The Thai students responded on three occasions. One was when Jum was talking with the American students about contacting Som, as discussed above. The other two times were by Som. One time she replied to the American teammates’ rule of bringing candy if a team member is late for a meeting. Som wrote, “Well, I’m not sure about our rule yet but I like to follow one of your ground rule ‘Bring candy when you’re late right!’
;-) I’ve to talk to Jum about this rule, I think I like it.” In the final example of responding to other messages, Som stated what she was replying to when she wrote, “Anyway, Amy 179 ask me about our university. We just have started a first week of secord semester. This semester I’ve attended 4 courses and Jum I’m not sure maybe one course, I think.”
There were occasions in Team Two in which the Thai students did not respond.
One was when Megan asked Som and Jum if they knew if the client had received their email. Megan asked this twice and no answer was posted by the Thai students. Also, similar to Team One, Team Two Thai students did not respond to any messages posted before they began communicating. Team Two Thai students also did not respond to any of the social pictures posted by the American students throughout their communication.
Finally, the Thai students did not answer many of the social questions posed by the
Americans. Som did answer Amy’s question about their university and Jum did answer the question about calling them. The other questions were not answered.
The American students had one instance of not responding. They did not respond directly to Som’s sharing of her social networking site. They did not indicate if they visited that site or comment on any of the content. In an interview with Megan, she did refer a number of times to Som’s social networking site, so it is clear that she did look at it when they worked together, though she did not refer to it in her intranet communication.
Team Two had fewer requests for information by the Thai students, resulting in fewer project-related responses by the Americans. Also, the Americans in Team Two provided information about the project that was not directly requested by their Thai teammates. Both the Thai and American students did not respond to some messages in the intranet, but this occurred more with the Thai students not responding. Similar to 180
Team One, the Team Two Thai students did not respond to any messages posted before they began using the intranet.
Asking questions about teammates.
Another means of conveying consideration is asking questions about each other.
In Team Two, the American students asked more questions about their Thai teammates’ daily lives and how they were doing than did the Thai students. After the video conference Amy wrote, “So what else do you do for fun? Are there any places or things that we should do or go to while we are there? Is there anything that you want from here?” In her first response to the Thai teammates after they began using the intranet
Amy wrote, “What is school like there? How big are your classes? … When is the best time of day to call you both? … Have either of you ever traveled out of your country?”
The questions in this message show Amy’s interest in her teammates as well as her consideration for them.
Neal, in a posting thanking Som and Jum for some information, wrote, “Do you go to movies? Do you go to clubs? Do you go to bars?” Neal also asked about contacting
Som on the phone: “Also, we tried to call Som but with no success. … is there a good time to call when we’d be able to get ahold of you?”
Megan asked questions as well, though not as many. In her first message after the
Thais started using the intranet, Megan wrote, “Did either of you do anything fun for your semester break?” and in a later message she wrote, “How is everything in
Thailand?”
Jum also asked how her American teammates were, though her questions were more general: “How’s everything with you?” and “What’s up?” She also asked their 181 opinion about the video conference: “It’s [the video conference] very fun. What do you think?” and about contacting Som (“Ps. Can you contact Som? … Are you free those time?”). Som did not ask any questions in her communication through the intranet.
The Americans asked more questions about the Thai students, and asked more questions in general than did the students in Team One. On Team Two, the types of questions they asked were similar between the Thai and American students. Both the
Thais and Americans asked about teammates’ daily lives and about calling them. The
American students asked the Thais about what they wanted from the U.S., and the Thai student Jum asked the Americans about the video conference.
Asking about or explaining absences from communication.
No one in Team Two asked about absences, as Koo did in Team One, or explained any absences from the intranet.
Expressing a connection with teammates.
Similar to Team One, Team Two students expressed a connection with each other through their use of personalized or friendly greetings and closings and through personalized vocabulary.
Jum used quite a bit of friendly greetings and closings as well as team terms in her
CMC. For greetings she wrote, “Hi, Ohio team”; “Hi team,”; “Hi everyone,”; “Hi everybody”; “Hi”; “Hi guys”; and “SAWASDEE GUYS.” Her closings included “Bye”;
“See ya.Take care (^^)Jum&Som”; “Good luck”; “Thanks”; “Have a nice weekend, Jum
^[^-^]^”; “Have a nice day, Jum [^-^]”; “Have a nice day! SOM&JUM”; and “----(^-^).”
Jum signed her name to most though not all of her messages. It can be seen that she included a number of emoticons in her closings. She included her Thai teammate’s name 182 in two postings. For terms that convey connection, Jum used terms such as “guys” and
“team” and invited her American teammates to look at their work: “So let’s take a look.”
Finally, Jum showed her connection with the team in her last message, where she posted pictures of the final presentations in Thailand.
Som also expressed a connection through her greetings, closings, and team-based vocabulary. Her greetings included, “Hiya,”; “Hi all you guys,”; “Sawasdee (It’s a Thai greeting) guys,”; and “Sawasdee Kah.” For closings she wrote, “Have a nice day :)”;
“Take care,”; and “Take care and have a nice day.” Som signed her name to most though not all her messages, similar to Jum. Team-based discourse she used included “guys”;
“team”; “Let’s check it out..”; and “Let’s get the party.” Som never signed her teammate
Jum’s name to a message she posted.
Megan used personalized greetings in her messages: “Hello everyone! Hello Som and Jum” and “Hi Jum and Som!” She did not always close her messages. When she did include closings, she sometimes included her name: “I hope to hear from you all soon and have a great week!” and “We hope to hear from you soon! –[full first name last name].”
Similar to Eva in Team One, Megan signed her full name in a later message, and she signed her full name and not her nickname, which she had been using. In an interview
Megan indicated that she does this occasionally and that it does not mean anything. She goes by both her given name and her nickname, and she occasionally writes her last name in messages. As for team-based discourse, Megan in one message addressed a Thai teammate directly: “Jum, I have e-mailed your father…” She did not use “guys” in her messages, and she did not sign any of her teammates’ names to her postings. 183
Amy’s greetings expressed her connection with her Thai teammates, as she used some Thai (“Sawasdee kah!”) and referred to Som and Jum as “teammates”: “Hello Thai teammates!” She always signed her name to messages that were addressed to her Thai teammates, with closings such as “Take care,” and “Talk to you soon!” Team-based discourse included “my new friends” and “teammates.” Amy did not sign Megan or
Neal’s names to her postings.
Neal’s greetings were more informal than those of his teammates, including: “yo yo yo” and “Alright! Welcome to the Database.” Closing his messages, he only signed his name and included a closing phrase one time: “Can’t wait to meet you guys, Neal.”
Otherwise he included no closings. Team-based discourse included, “you kids”; “you guys”; and using a teammate’s name in his comment “Som, nice fact sheet.” Neal did not sign his American teammates’ names to his messages.
Thus, all Team Two team members used greetings, closings, and team-based discourse in their messages. But unlike Team One, where all team members used team members’ names in their messages, in Team Two this only occurred twice, by the
American students Megan (“Hi Jum and Som!”) and Neal (“Som, …”). Similar to Team
One, in Team Two most messages began with friendly and casual greetings. Most messages ended with closing phrases but not necessarily with the writer’s name. The only
Team Two student to sign a teammate’s name to messages was Jum, unlike in Team One where two Thai students and one American signed teammates’ names. While in Team
One all students referred to each other as “guys,” in Team Two only three of the five students did so (Jum, Som, and Neal). 184
Showing Support for Teammates
To show support for teammates, students on Team Two offered assistance or information, expressed appreciation, expressed encouragement, offered praise, offered apologies, gave updates, and were thoughtful.
Offering assistance or information.
One way to show support for teammates is by offering assistance or information.
In Team Two, the Thai students did this more than did the Americans. Both Jum and Som made a similar number of offers. Most of Jum’s offers were resources for the project. For example, she wrote: “Here’s the second project status.----(^-^)”; “This is the approved version of our research proposal, action plan, action table,and ground rule. So let’s take a look.”; “this is the [university] status report”; “This’s the client’s pics”; and “Anyway, I attached you the file of the first site visit of [client].This is the approved version.”
Another offer of Jum’s was for information about when to call Som: “I think the best time to contact her [Som] is about 8.00 P.M.(your country’s time)= 8.00 A.M. Thailand because I think Thai time is faster than USA about 24 hours alright(I’m not sure).”
Som offered both project-related work and social information. About the project she stated, “This is our work now but it has not approved yet. Let’s check it out..” and
“Here is a client factsheet for the [client]..” Som offered pictures as well, for example by writing, “I have some pics to show.” At the beginning of her correspondence, Som offered her social networking account for the American students to learn more about her,
“You can see my spaces and more pics at this site http://[xxxxx].spaces.live.com. Nice to meet you anyway,” and she offered her email address if they wanted to contact her, “Ok, 185 if you wanna know about me more, then talk to me or contact me at
[xxxxx]@hotmail.com.”
The American students made offers as well, but fewer than the Thais. Amy and
Megan made about the same number. Amy offered project-related information to the group, for example: “Here is a little research about Foundations within Thailand” and
“the only real information we have from them is from their website (I suggest you look there, it may help answer some of your questions).” In addition to providing information, she offered to look up more information: “Let me know if you need anything else.”
Megan offered to help the Thai students after she completed some of the work required for her GLC class: “After we find out some basic information and answers to those questions I feel like we will surely be able to help you with you portion of the project so far!” When she did post the requested information, she wrote, “Answers to
Previous Post on things you would like to get from us. These are the best answers we can provide for you.” After providing them with some information, she went on to write, “If you have any more questions just ask. We would love to help.” Megan’s offer to answer questions is the only one in this team’s communication. Megan’s suggestion that she would answer their questions when they answered her question is one way that communicators can claim reciprocity, according to Brown and Levinson (1987).
Neal made the fewest offers. One offer was of research he found: “some general research regarding volunteerism/philanthropy in Thailand.” He then provides two links and summaries of the internet content. The other is for an assignment he wrote up: “Here is a client fact sheet for the [client].” 186
Unlike in Team One, where one team member (Koo) made more offers, in this team there was no one team member who offered the most. The Thais did make more offers than the Americans on Team Two. Most of the offers on this team were for project information, with one offer to answer questions, which was from Megan, and one offer to find more information, from Amy. The Thai students also made non-project related offers
(e.g., social networking site). There were no offers to clear up any misunderstandings.
Expressing appreciation.
Expressing appreciation can be a useful way for teammates to show their support for each other. The students on Team Two expressed appreciation, but not as much as the students on Team One. One American and one Thai student expressed appreciation. In a message with only social content and appreciation, Neal wrote, “Som, nice fact sheet. It is very helpful for us because we have little information on the [client]. Thanks….
Thanks again for the great fact sheet.” Jum expressed appreciation twice. She wrote
“Thank you for your help” after asking the American students to help them answer some questions and thanking them for their hard work. Jum also wrote, “Thanks” after asking the Americans for their ideas on how to solve a project-related problem. The other students on this team did not explicitly state appreciation.
Thus, Team Two students expressed less appreciation than students on Team One.
An American student thanked the Thais once for information and a Thai student thanked the Americans twice for their help in the project in a more general sense.
Expressing encouragement.
Three students on Team Two expressed encouragement: Amy, Jum, and Som.
Amy encouraged her Thai teammates in her first message after the video conference. 187
After some social discussion, she answered the Thais’ questions and then wrote “I hope some of this was helpful. It will be much easier to work on things when we are actually together.” For Jum, early in the project she posted the team’s research proposal and concluded the message with “Good luck.” Som wrote, “don’t worry!!” after assuring the
American students that they would have fun in Chiang Mai.
The encouragement expressed on this team was project-related and from one Thai and two American students. This is slightly different from Team One, where a Thai was the only student to express encouragement, twice about the American students’ final exams and once about the project.
Offering praise.
There were two occurrences of praise on Team Two, both by American students.
Amy praised pictures sent by a Thai student by saying “The pictures of the site visit were very nice.” Neal complimented the fact sheet sent by Som, “Som, nice fact sheet,” and later called the fact sheet “great.” This is different from Team One, where the praise came from the Thai students, although neither team had much praise in its discourse.
Offering apologies.
There were two apologies on Team Two, one from an American student and one from a Thai. A few days after the Thais began communicating on the intranet Megan concluded a message with “Hope all is well and I am sorry this post is so long.” The long message she referred to included project information, updates, and non-project communication. In her first message after the video conference, Jum concluded her posting with an apology, “We’re so sorry that our questions may make you work hard, but it’ll help us a lot if we get those information.” This apology occurred after she listed 188 nine questions she wanted the American students to help answer on topics such as marketing and funding development organizations. Later that day, Amy did respond to
Jum about the questions.
Thus, Team Two did have apologies, unlike Team One, which had no apologies.
In this team, the American student’s apology was about a long posting and the Thai’s was apologizing for asking for more help.
Giving updates.
The Thai students on Team Two provided more updates than the Americans.
Som’s updates were only project-related. Som wrote: “I just want to tell u that now Jum and I are working on a research proposal.”; “it [project report] has not approved yet”;
“Well, for our work(research proposal&groung rule), if my team has finished it, we’ll let you know”; and,
Well, yesterday Jum and I went to [client]. Its locatiom is quit far from our
university so we had to take Red Car(if you’re here, you’ll get used to with it.. It
will be your limousine.) By the way, our client was very nice and gave us lots of
good information. However, now we’re working on a secord site visit and we will
post it ASAP.
In this update by Som, she not only told her American teammates what she was doing but also made a joke about the only public transportation in Chiang Mai, the “Red Car,” which is a pick-up truck and not close to the comfort of a limousine.
Jum provided project updates, but fewer of them: “In order to answer the research question, today(9 Nov) we are going to meet our client again” and “I will send you a reserch proposal as soon as our Ajarn approve it.” Most of the updates posted by the Thai 189 students referred to both team members (e.g., “Jum and I” or “we”). Jum also updated the
American students on non-project information: “What’s up? Yesterday, I went to the night market at Wui Lay Road to shop something. It was fun, you know. I’ve got many things from there because there are lots of inexpensive things. Ha ha.”
The Americans offered fewer updates, with the most being two, which were from
Megan. Megan updated the Thai students on the project but also included one update that was more social. For the project she wrote, “Here is a couple of things we have been doing…” Not related to the project she wrote, “It is 2:49pm in the afternoon on
Wednesday there but I am up late at 2:49 am on Wednesday in Athens!” Amy gave an update on the project (“we have been trying to contact someone in charge at the organization and are getting no response”), as did Neal (“Anyway, we’ve been hard at work researching the non-profit social services industry and when we come up with a completed product we’ll post it on the database for you guys. No new news besides that.”) Most of the American students’ updates also refer to all the team, not just the message writer.
Team Two students updated each other with more updates coming from the Thai students, similar to Team One. Also similar to Team One, most of the updates were project-related and most updates referred to team members as opposed to only the message writer.
Being thoughtful.
Both the American and Thai students on Team Two were thoughtful in their
CMC. Megan and Jum expressed the most thoughtfulness in their discourse. 190
Megan showed thoughtfulness when she made general thoughtful remarks such as
“Hope this helps!”; “Have a great day!”; “Hope all is well for you all there! Enjoy your festival”; and “I hope we all get to see mroe pictures soon!” Her first message to Som and
Jum showed her consideration: “my name is Megan [last name] but I go by the name
Meg.” Megan was also kind in her requests: “It would be very useful for us to get a little more information from our client” and “We have not found much information specifically about the organization in Thailand that is why we were hoping you all could send us some more specific information.” Another way that Megan was thoughtful was in her request to have the client (Jum’s father) send information: “But possibly could your dad put together something about [client name] that you can post on the database? That would be great if you could. We cannot find much information through the website for the organization.”
Finally, Megan explained the pictures she posted, for example explaining the main street, identifying students in the pictures, and explaining Halloween pictures. She wrote, “Also we sort of had our own festival this past Saturday for Halloween. All the students on Ohio University’s campus dress in costumes and have a great time and spend time downtown. Usually the fun involves partying and going out but anyways, here are a few pictures of us and soem friends! Enjoy!”
Jum was very considerate and thoughtful in her CMC. She was kind in her requests: “We are Looking forward to here this answer from you” and “If you wanna talk to Som, please keep contact her again.” An example of Jum considerately asking for feedback is: “This is the question that my Ajarn wanted to know. What do you think about the strategies to analyse our project? What is the suitable strategies? I and Som 191 think that the suitable one should be a SWOT because our client is the foundation.” Jum also wrote that she hoped project-related information she posted would help the
American students: “I wish that it will make you get some idea about our project.” Jum also posted pictures and explained them, writing, “Next week we have a big festival which is a Loy Kra Thong Festival( Floating the banana bowls on the river to worship the mother of river).” She also explained the Royal Flora Expo and gave a web link for the
American students to follow. After the project, Jum posted pictures of their group presentation with the comment “HERE IS OUR PICS. I HOPE YOU LIKE IT GUYS.
(^o^)HAVE A SAFE TRIP TO YOUR STATE KA.”
The ka Jum included in her posting with the project pictures represents the final way that Jum was thoughtful in her CMC. Jum used ka in two of her postings. Jum’s other use of the word ka is when she shared pictures of the client with the American students: “This’s the client’s pics ka ^o^.” The Thai word ka has no direct translation in
English. According to the Thai teaching assistant, it is a politeness and respect marker used by women (men say “krup”). In Thai, it is often placed at the end of each sentence and is certainly used in politeness situations. In Jum’s two online postings where she used
“ka,” she was wishing them well and offering them something. When interviewed about the use of the word ka in their team box, Megan noted that Jum was a very respectful, formal, and polite student who used ka not only in her intranet postings but also in her spoken English when they were in Thailand. She saw Jum’s use of ka as a part of her respectful personality.
Som was thoughtful in her CMC as well. She started her communication with the
American students by telling them her full Thai name and then saying, “It’s quite a long 192 name so please call me SOM, short and easy to remember. I’m nice and friendly.” She also wrote that she was happy to meet the American students: “Nice to meet you anyway.” Speaking about Chiang Mai, she told the American students they would all enjoy their time together:
And I hope everything here will make you happy and fun at the same time.
Anyway, don’t worry guys here we have everythig you want. There’re lots of nice
place, nice bar, nice shop and fun activities around our university so don’t worry!!
Just prepare yourself and let’s get the party ;-)
Som also explained the pictures that she posted of the Thai festivals: “We set off the floting lantern and fier balloonand to take away bad things. This will make our life better.” Finally, after the project was over she also posted pictures of the group at their final presentations in Thailand on her personal social networking site. Som did not make any requests of the American students.
Amy and Neal made fewer thoughtful expressions than did the other students.
One way Amy was thoughtful was when she responded to her Thai teammates the first time: “It is so nice to finally have you on the database.” Also, after posting some information she wrote, “I hope some of this was helpful.” She also wished them well, such as “Have a great day” and “Hope all is well.” She was also thoughtful when she asked the Thai students if they wanted anything from the States: “Is there anything you want from here?” and when she asked them when to call: “When is the best time of day to call you both? With the time difference, we aren’t sure of what is too early or too late.” Amy made no requests for information from the Thais, so she could not show her consideration in thoughtful requests. 193
Neal was thoughtful as well. Similar to Amy, though, he did not make any requests. What he did do that was thoughtful was thinking to have the team post pictures of Halloween (“This weekend was our annual Halloween celebration, I talked to Megan and she’s going to post some pictures on the database. Just for fun.”) He also explained and gave his opinions on the project-related information he posted instead of simply posting it with no comments.
Team Two students showed thoughtfulness in a variety of ways with no one way being used by all students. The most commonly used techniques were making general well-wishing remarks (e.g., “I hope some of this was helpful” or “I wish that it will make you get some idea about our project”) and explaining things (either pictures or information). Students who did make requests on Team Two also did so thoughtfully. A
Thai student used the Thai word ka to express her consideration to the American students.
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind
Two examples exist in Team Two of a student clearly writing with an international reader in mind. In an early posting, Som explained a Thai word she used:
“Sawasdee (It’s a Thai greeting) guys.” The second example is when Amy explained a word that she thought they might not know, “mock project(pretend – just for practice).”
The Americans on Team Two also did try to modify their language because their partners were non-native English speakers. Megan noted that they tried to use less slang in their postings (for example, not writing things like “Hey girl” and avoiding contractions), and in general tried to use a more formal style of writing. She stated that the whole team also checked their spelling carefully. She made modifications because she 194 knew the Thai students had not been in the States and assumed they would not be used to informal American English.
Consideration Summary Team Two
Consideration was conveyed by Team Two students in three main ways, by (a) showing interest and excitement in teammates and their culture, (b) showing support for teammates, and (c) communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. Team Two students used some techniques relatively equally, while others were used more by the
Americans and others more by the Thai students.
One technique used by all students in Team Two was expressing a connection with their teammates. While all students expressed a connection, not all used the technique of using teammates’ names. They did all use many greetings, closings, and team-based discourse (e.g., calling themselves a team). Another technique to show consideration used by Team Two was being thoughtful. All students made general well- wishing remarks and explained things. Requests that were made were also done so considerately. Other techniques used by all Team Two students but not used as often were expressing appreciation, encouragement, apologies, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind.
The American students used certain techniques to express consideration more than the Thai students. The Americans expressed more excitement and interest in Thai culture, similar to Team One, and also responded to messages more often. This is likely because the American students provided the Thai students with the information they needed and the Thai students responded with only two thank you’s, unlike on Team One where the Thai students expressed more appreciation. The American students on Team 195
Two also asked more questions about their Thai teammates. This is unlike Team One, where the Thais asked more questions about the Americans. More praise was expressed by Americans in Team Two, but not much praise occurred in general in this team.
The Thai students on Team Two made more offers of assistance or information.
Most offers on this team were project-related, with Thai students offering research or reports they had written. Non-project related offers were made by the Thai students as well. This team had little discourse offering to clear up confusion, help answer questions, or to find more information. In addition to having more offers, the Thai students included more updates in their discourse. Most updates were project-related and referred to the team and not just the message-writer. This is similar to Team One.
There was one technique not used in Team Two, which was asking about or explaining absences. Unlike on Team One, which had a dominant team member, on
Team Two no one student appears as a team leader through their discourse. Two students were described as co-leaders, but no one student dominated.
Team Two students also used technology-based strategies to build and maintain relationships with each other. They posted 39 personal pictures; talked on the phone one time; communicated through a social networking site (facebook); communicated through the video conference once; used humor markers, emoticons, and exclamation points; used friendly headings for their postings; used informal spellings/vocabulary; directed each other to a social networking site; and referred each other to internet links for non-project information. 196
Team Three: Consideration
This section describes the discourse of Team Three, focusing on the ways they showed consideration in their team. Three of the four students on Team Three have more reserved personalities. Krista described herself in her bio sketch, saying, “I’m very easy going, open minded and sometimes I can be shy.” In an interview Krista confirmed that she was quiet. Amber in her postings called herself easy-going and was also described as quiet by Krista. The American students referred to Dear as reserved as well. The Thai student Milk was the only outgoing student, as described by Krista and Amber. Krista saw Milk as being the team leader, though she felt that all the students were hard-working and contributed greatly. Krista described Team Three as thoughtful and considerate and noted that they all got along well. Krista described the project in general, though, as frustrating, as the client did not communicate clearly to the Thai students what they wanted, resulting in confusion between the Thai and American students. Perhaps this feeling of frustration contributed to Krista not feeling as close to Milk and Dear before meeting them face-to-face in Thailand. Krista noted that she became closer with them after the project confusion was resolved and she could spend time with them in person.
The teaching assistant interviewed also noted that this team encountered more client confusion than the other teams, but also commented that they worked hard through the confusion and maintained positive attitudes.
In addition to the class Skype video conference, Krista and Amber met with Dear
(Milk was out of town) twice through Skype outside of class time to discuss the project and social topics such as school and their countries. They never called each other on their cell phones. 197
The discourse of this team was the most considerate of any of the three teams studied. All students appear considerate in their discourse. It is likely that Milk was the team leader, as stated by Krista, as she offered the most assistance and information, expressed the most appreciation, offered the most apologies, and gave the most updates in the team. Milk did not dominate Team Three to the degree that Koo dominated Team
One, however.
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture
Within showing interest in teammates and their culture, students could express interest and excitement, respond to messages, ask questions about teammates, ask about or explain absences in communication, or use discourse that showed they felt a connection to their teammates.
Expressing interest and excitement.
While the students on Team Three expressed excitement and interest in Thailand, they did not have as many expressions of excitement or interest as Team One. On Team
Three, the American students expressed more excitement than the Thais, similar to
Teams One and Two.
Krista expressed the most interest and excitement. In her bio sketch she wrote about the relationship between Thailand and the United States and her interest in learning more about Thailand:
My view of Thailand in relation to the United States is that we get along well. I
know that we import many goods from Thailand and also Thai food has become
quite popular. I think that the only misunderstanding between Thailand and the 198
U.S. is a slight difference of opinion of democracy. I am very eager to learn more
about Thailand and more about you.
In addition to showing interest in Thailand, Krista also showed interest in the Thai students. In her bio sketch she wrote, “I would love to hear from you and I can’t wait to meet you!” After the video conference she wrote, “We look forward to seeing you soon.”
After GLC classes were over she wrote, “I’m really excited to meet everyone and I know we will have a great time!” She closed her last message excitedly with, “I’ll see you tomorow!”
Amber in her bio sketch shared her interest in international experiences and learning from people from other cultures:
I have never been abroad before so Thailand will be my first experience and I
can’t wait. I joined the GLC for its international opportunities and to get real
experience to solve real world issues. … I especially like to learn from other
cultures and learn other’s beliefs. I can’t wait to come to Thailand and learn from
all of you.
Another example of Amber’s excitement at going to Thailand was when two weeks before leaving for Thailand she opened a message with “I’m so excited to finally meet you two, only two more weeks!!!”
Dear expressed her interested in working with the American students in her first message posted, emphasizing how glad she was that they were working together, “We are very excited about doing Ohio project what we called and looking forward to work with you. It is wonderful to have you working with us.” One week before the American 199 students came to Thailand she wrote, “I’m looking forward to see you all…. I’m so excited!!”
Milk did not directly state an interest in hearing about America or general interest in working with Americans but she did express interest about communicating: “It’sgood to hear from you and your fun stuff over there for the Halloween.”
Thus, the American students on Team Three expressed slightly more interest and excitement at working together and at learning about their culture than did the Thai students. They did not express as much excitement as did Teams One, though. A possible explanation for why this team expressed less excitement might be the students’ personalities and team personality, which was in general more reserved. While Team One had more expressions of excitement in the closings of their postings, this was not apparent in Team Three. Similar to Team One, though, this team did have more expressions of excitement as the time for the American students’ visit drew closer.
Responding to messages.
Team Three students responded to each other’s messages more than did students on Teams One and Two, and unlike in Teams One and Two, many of the responses in
Team Three repeated the question. Milk especially repeated questions before giving answers. She answered nine questions in this way. Dear answered two questions by repeating the question first, and the American students did not repeat any questions.
Students also answered questions without repeating the question. Dear continued answering a question from Krista and Amber, saying only, “I just want to add more.” In a response to the Americans about a question they had about the project, Dear did not repeat the question but did refer to it. She wrote, “About the project, Milk and I …” 200
Milk also responded without repeating the question, though she did refer to it. For example, when Krista asked the question, “Is there anything that you are interested in knowing about American culture … before we arrive. I was also wondering if you guys wear earrings,” Milk responded:
Yes we do wear earrings and if you like earrings, Thailand is a place for you. We
got so many kinds of earrings with the good style and 50 cents price. About the
American culture? Can you bring me some snow? I’m joking.
Also, in a response about the project, Milk re-posted a document that would not open after Amber asked her to re-send it.
Krista also responded to many messages, always without repeating the question.
In her response to Milk’s initial posting stating why she was interested in working with their client, Krista responded, “We also feel that the organization/campaign are interesting and are eager to help and learn more about the project.” Answering a question from the Thai students about how she was doing, Krista wrote, “I’m doing fine, thanks for asking.”
In addition to general responses, Team Three had a long sequence of discussions surrounding confusion over the project. This sequence shows consideration in addition to showing how well this team responded to each other’s messages. The Thai teaching assistant indicated that the main reason this team was confused about the project was because they had little direction from the client, though the team worked quite hard in spite of the circumstances. She also indicated that the Thai students likely had a difficult time explaining the project, as English was not their first language and it was quite 201 complex. Dear was the first to notice the confusion and wrote this message under the subject line “S.O.S. :D”:
Hi there, after we have read through all of the information you posted, it’s good to
know you are working really hard to help us. However, we think your client is not
quite similar to ours. [Our client] is… So it would be great if you can find the
organization that is more similar to ours. Sorry for the misunderstandings since
the beginning but we just want to make sure that all of us understand every thing
in the same way. If you have any questions, please always feel free to ask at any
time. This is the example web site …
Amber responded to the message from Dear by asking a few more questions and ending her message, “Thanks for letting us know about the mix up:).” Krista then posted a message stating, “We just wanted to make sure we have the main idea of the project” and asked more questions, ending the message “We’ll be in contact and that you for all of your help.” Dear then replied saying, “just want to add more,” and closed her message with “I hope this does not confuse you. Thank you for asking questions. And I want to tell you that you understand the right way now. We are sorry that you miss understood.”
Milk then joined in and answered Krista’s question, offered information so that Krista could find the information she needed, apologized about the confusion (“I’m sorry about the confusing”), and thanked them for their hard work (“thank you so much for your effort in helping us about this project”). Milk later wrote another message, beginning:
Sorry for making too much confusion over there. Dear and me are trying to make
every thing clear after we had visited our client today. We have updated our new 202
sub-research questions. Please take a look, hopefully, they will give you the ideas
about our project.
Yet after this the misunderstanding continued. Dear sent a message later that day, “Hello
Krista and Amber, We are sorry again. After we had a clear discussion with our client, we acknowledged that our client would like us to focus on …” Amber then posted a message saying “Hi Dear and Milk, We hare beginning to understand the project more but we have a few more questions” and Milk’s response after answering the questions was to say “Please take a look at our updated research proposal, our sub-research questions are what the client needs us to help and that’s what our project will be like. thanks for your help.” After Krista and Amber sent new information to Dear and Milk,
Dear wrote under the subject line “Thank you for all the data”, “In my opinion, we found that what you all sent this time is useful. Thank you very much.” With this, the confusion appears to have ended with no apparent frustration or ill feelings on either side.
Team Three also had a discussion regarding the video conference. It began with
Milk, who wrote, “It was amazing how we talked overseas today. I still can’t believe that.
Thanks for the photos. I posted one from myself. … Sorry that I talked too much this morning, I was nervous so I talked a lot.” Krista responded, “Hello, This is Krista. It was really nice to talk to you today” and in a subsequent message wrote, “Hey,
Thanks for the picture, and that’s o.k. I was really nervous during the video conference and didn’t know what to say!” Amber then joined the discussion, writing, “Hi Milk &
Dear, Hi guys i’m so excited to finally meet you two, only two more weeks!!! It was really cool that we all got to talk to each other on Wednesday at the video conference, but it was a little awkward ;)” In fact, the video conference with this team was more awkward 203 than with other teams, largely because the Thai students had a difficult time understanding the American students and because the students started to all talk at the same time. For example, Dear and Milk could not understand Amber’s reply to where they wanted to go in Thailand and ended up just saying, “Ok, we’ll plan something fun.”
These interchanges show a high response from the students and also show their consideration, validating each other’s feelings and behavior during the video conference.
While students did generally reply, there were occasions on Team Three where the students did not respond to each other. Similar to Team One, the Thai students on
Team Three did not respond to messages posted before they began communicating on the intranet. Amber had posted several social pictures that the Thai students did not comment on. Also, when the American students posted pictures of a project-related site visit they made, the Thai students did not respond. Another example of non-response is when
Amber asked the question if they could go dancing in Thailand, and the Thai students did not respond. Also, when Krista asked if there was anything they should know about
Thailand, the Thai students did not offer any information. Finally, when Krista apologized for the American students’ absence from communication, the Thai students did not respond. There was also one case where the American students did not respond.
Milk posted team ground rules with the note, “Hi guys, this is our ground rules” but the
American students did not reply.
The responses in Team Three differ somewhat from those in Team One. In Team
One, the Thai students largely requested information from the American students, the
Americans provided it, and the Thai students thanked them. In Team Three, the American students asked more project-related questions, and the Thai students answered them, 204 largely by repeating the questions first (unlike in Team One). There was also more extended discussion in Team Three, with topics being discussed over several messages, especially regarding project-related confusion. These differences are likely due to the project confusion Team Three experienced, with the American students confused about what they were supposed to research and therefore needing to ask more questions.
Similar to Teams One and Two, in Team Three there were also occasions where students did not respond to each other. In all the teams the Thai students did not respond more often than the Americans, partly because the Thai students on all three teams did not respond to messages posted before they began communicating on the intranet. This difference is likely due to course design.
Asking questions about teammates.
The only students to ask how the others were doing were Krista and Dear. Krista wrote, “How have you been???”; “How have you been? What have you been up to?” and
Dear asked, “How are you doing?” Students on Team Three asked the fewest questions about how their teammates were doing. This team had two outside Skype video conferences, which might explain why they asked fewer questions through the intranet.
Asking about or explaining absences from communication.
There were two instances of students explaining absences in Team Three. Krista explained the American students’ absence from the intranet by saying, “I’m sorry we have not posted much lately, Amber and I have been studing for exams. But, I had my last one yesterday so I am at home.” She then shared project-related information and closed the posting with “Please let us know if there is anything in particular that you would like Amber and I to look up before we leave. Have a great day!” Milk and Dear 205 did not respond directly about their absence. They did continue to communicate about the project, however, and continue to express excitement about soon meeting each other.
Similar to Team One, in Team Three a Thai student explained the absence of a
Thai teammate. Dear wrote the first message posted on the intranet from the Thai students. In that message, she relayed Milk’s apology:
Hello.
My name is Dear. And the other one is Milk. Milk is not here today to say hi. She
is apologised for that. Milk and I are 22 years old. We both are interested in
gaining new knowledge and experience. We are very excited about doing Ohio
project what we called and looking forward to work with you. It is wonderful to
have you working with us.
Dear
Dear not only explained Milk’s absence but also expressed their mutual excitement. In this message Dear showed concern not only for the American students in explaining
Milk’s absence and indicating her interest, but she also showed concern for Milk, ensuring that the American students did not have a negative first impression.
Thus, in Team Three, both the American and Thai students explained absences, with the American student Krista explaining the absence of herself and her American teammate, and with the Thai student Dear explaining the absence of just her Thai teammate, Milk. Team Three had a similar amount of discussion about absences as Team
One and had more discussion about absences than Team Two, which had none.
Expressing a connection with teammates. 206
Similar to the other teams, the students on Team Three used personalized and friendly greetings and closings and personalized vocabulary to express their connection with their teammates.
Milk used friendly greetings in most of her messages, including, “Hello”; “Hi this is Milk”; “Hi there”; “Hi guys”; “Hey Guys”; “Hey guys”; “Thank you”; “Dear Amber and Krista”; and the word play “Harlow….” She generally included closings as well with her name and a phrase, “I will see you tomorrow”; “Thank you for all your help”; “thanks guys”; “Good night guys. :D”; Have a nice day and enjoy! (hopefully :D)”; and “Thanks for writing.” In one posting, Milk included her name and Dear’s, with Dear’s name first.
Milk also used “guys” to refer to her American teammates.
Dear included friendly greetings in most of her postings as well, such as “Hello”;
“Hi there”; “Dear Ohio Team”; and “Hello Krista and Amber.” Dear also frequently signed her name in her closings but only included one closing phrase, “I’m looking forward to see you all.” Dear signed Milk’s name to one posting, “Dear & Milk.” Dear also used “guys” to refer to Krista and Amber.
Amber used personalized greetings as well. She began her bio sketch, “Hello my
Thai teammates and Ajarns.” Three of the seven American students in this study opened their bio sketches with greetings. Amber was one, and the other two were Krista and Eva
(Team One). In her other messages, Amber used the greetings “Hi Dear and Milk” or “Hi
Milk and Dear.” She usually started messages with a personalized greeting, but did not always sign her name in her closings. She did usually end with a phrase, such as “Talk to you girls later”; “See you girls soon,”; “Thanks”; or “Thanks for letting us know about the mix up:)” One situation in which she included no greeting or closing was when she 207 posted pictures. She only provided a brief description of the pictures. In order to express a connection with her Thai teammates, Amber also used the word “guys,” similar to the other Americans in this study, and referred to Milk and Dear as her “Thai teammates.”
Krista also used personalized greetings in her CMC. She used the Thai greeting “Sa wa dee Kha!” in her bio sketch and generally began her messages with greetings, including: “Hello again Milk and Dear!”; “Hello”; “Hello Milk and Dear”; “Hey”; “Hi
Dear and Milk”; and “Hi Milk and Dear.” She also usually signed her name in her closings, with phrases such as “Thank you for all of your work and I’ll see you tomorow!”; “Talk to you later”; “Have a great day”; “Have a good day”; “We’ll be in contact and thank you for all of your help”; “Your teammate”; and “We hope to hear from you again soon :-)” Krista signed just her first name except in one message in which she signed her first and last name. The message was posted shortly before the American students left for Thailand, and included social chit-chat and an update on project work. In an interview, Krista indicated that she also sometimes just signs her full name and that it does not mean anything. Krista included a greeting and closing in all of the three messages she posted with social pictures but did not include a greeting or closing in the two postings she had with project-related pictures. Also, Krista posted two messages signed with both her name and her teammate Amber’s, signing her name first. She used
“guys” and “Thai teammates” to refer to her Milk and Dear.
Both the American and Thai students on Team Three expressed a connection with each other in similar ways, such as including friendly or personalized greetings and using
“guys” to refer to teammates. There were some differences in the amount of personalization in greetings, with the Americans including the Thais’ names more. This 208 difference could be cultural- or personality-based. Also, there were differences in how often students included their names in their closings. Krista generally signed her name and a closing phrase, while Dear usually signed her name but few closing phrases, and
Amber and Milk generally included a closing phrase but not their names as often. These differences are likely personality-based. Both the American and Thai students signed some messages with both teammates’ names, as in the other teams. Krista did this twice, including her name first, Milk did it once with Dear’s name first, and Dear did it once, with her name first.
Showing Support for Teammates
Within showing support for teammates are the techniques of offering assistance or information, expressing appreciation, offering praise, offering apologies, giving updates, being thoughtful, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. No students on Team Three expressed encouragement.
Offering assistance or information.
Both the American and Thai students offered considerable assistance or information in Team Three, with the Thai students offering slightly more than the
Americans. Milk offered the most, all related to the project. She offered pieces of information about the project, “Please take a look, hopefully, they will give you the ideas about our project”; “This is our swot and step analysis”; “this is our ground rules”; “Here is the website of the organization that we are working on”; “Here are some description”; and “This is the new one that has been approved already.” She also suggested how the
American students could find some information: “You can use the organization’s name as a key word to search for more information.” Finally, Milk suggested that the American 209 students post their questions so that the Thai students could pose them to the client at their next visit: “you can also leave us the questions since we are going to visit the site again on this Monday. Then, we can ask the client directly.”
Dear made a number of offers as well, some of them offers to answer questions:
“if you have any questions, please ask us. :D”; “If you have any questions, please always feel free to ask at any time.” Dear also offered the American students the opportunity to revise their work: “You guys can add more or change our sub-research questions.”
Finally, she offered resources: “And here is our 1st(draft) executive outline, if you want to take a look at it”; “The is the example website …”; and “I just found the website called… The [client] is trying to do some stuff like that.” Dear used humor in her subject line revealing that she was offering help, “S.O.S :D” when in the message she discussed a misunderstanding Krista and Amber had about the project.
Krista also offered assistance or resources to show concern for her Thai teammates. Most of the offers were for information about the project: “Attached is a summary of our second site visit and the picutres are of the farm”; “Here is the web site for …”; “Here is our first site visit summary. The pictures were taken...”; and “I attached some information that I found.” In addition, Krista asked Dear and Milk if they wanted specific information: “We were wondering if …you and Dear would like us to look up any information in particular”; “Please let us know if there is anything in particular that you would like Amber and I to look up before we leave. Have a great day!” Finally, she asked about their cultures: “Is there anything that you are interested in knowing about
American culture and is there anything that you would like us to know about Thailand before we arrive.” 210
Amber made the fewest offers, all of them being for resources: “I was doing some research and found this website”; “I’ve attached the website below”; and “I don’t know if this will help at all but I thought it might give some ideas on…” She did not offer to look up any information, though Krista included Amber in her offers.
Team Three was very considerate in the way they offered information to each other, though the Thai students made slightly more offers (which is similar to Team
Two). Both groups offered resources or information and help, but Krista also offered information about American culture, Milk offered the American students the opportunity to revise their work, and Dear used humor in one of her offers.
Expressing appreciation.
Team Three students showed considerable appreciation, with the Thai students saying thank you slightly more than the Americans. Milk expressed the most appreciation. About project-related work she wrote, “thanks for your help”; “Thank you for your hard work”; “thanks a lot”; “Thank you for all your help”; “Thank you”; “thanks guys”; “thank you so much for your effort in helping us about this project”; and “Thank you for all your respond.” About non-project work she wrote “Thanks for the photos” and
“Thanks for writing.” The final message she had in the team box, dated November 30th, is after the American students were in the country: “I just want to say, thank you guys for working hard on helping us. I hope that you guys have fun for the rest of your stay in our country.”
Dear expressed appreciation only related to the project: “We thank you so much for your help”; “Thank you for asking questions”; “Thank you all for the data”; and “In my opinion, we found that what you all sent this time is useful. Thank you very much.” 211
Krista expressed appreciation to her teammates, with most of the expressions related to project work: “Thank you for writing”; “thank you for posting the Step and
SWOT. I especially enjoyed the pictures. They were very helpful”; “thank you again for all of your hard work”; “Thank you for all of your work”; and “We’ll be in contact and thank you for all of your help.” About a non-project related posting, Krista wrote, “Thank you for the posts and picture :-)” This was in regard to Milk’s first posting with her picture. Then Krista wrote “Thanks for the picture” after Milk shared the picture of herself for Halloween. When the Thai students asked Krista how they have been Krista wrote, “thanks for asking.”
Amber posted a project-related “Thanks”; “Thanks for letting us know about the mix up:)”; and “thanks for the great info.”
Thus, both the American and Thai students expressed appreciation about project information and also about social content. The majority of the expressions of appreciation were about the project. The amount of appreciation in this team is different from Teams
One and Two. This team had more appreciation than both other teams, perhaps due to the confusion in their project. In addition, the expressions of appreciation were closer to being equal on this team, unlike Team One, in which more Thai students expressed considerably more appreciation.
Expressing encouragement.
Team Three had no expressions of encouragement. This was different from the other teams, with Team One having encouragement from a Thai student and Team Two having encouragement from one Thai and one American.
212
Offering praise.
Half the occurrences of praise in Team Three came from the American students and half from the Thais. From the American students, Krista commented in one message,
“I read over the outline and it looks great,” while Amber referred to material sent by the
Thai students as “great info.” From the Thai students, Dear wrote, “Hi there, after we have read through all of the information you posted, it’s good to know you are working really hard to help us.” In her final message, Dear referred to the information the
American students sent as “useful.”
Thus, both the American and Thai students included praise in their messages, all of the praise being about the project. This is different from Team One, where the Thai students offered the praise, and Team Two, where praise came from the American students. Also, unlike in Teams One and Two, in Team Three the students did not compliment each other’s pictures.
Offering apologies.
Three of the four students on Team Three offered apologies, with the most coming from Milk. Two of her four apologies were for the confusion the team experienced at the beginning of the project: “Sorry for making too much confusion”; and
“I’m sorry about the confusing.” Another apology was about a blurry picture she sent:
“Thanks for the photos. I posted one from myself. I dressed like a princess (as you can see my little look-a-like crown on my hair…. it’s blurry. Sorry for that.” A different type of apology was for her nervousness at the video conference: “Sorry that I talked too much this morning, I was nervous so I talked a lot.” 213
Dear apologized about the confusion in her postings, similar to Milk. Dear wrote,
“We are sorry that you miss understood”; “Sorry about the misunderstandings”; and “We are sorry.” Krista did not offer any apologies about the project confusion but did apologize for a blurry picture she sent and for missing some communication: “Sorry that it’s [picture of Halloween] kind of blurry” and “I’m sorry we have not posted much lately, Amber and I have been studing for exams.” Amber is the one student who did not apologize on this team.
Thus, of the nine apologies offered in this team, seven were made by Thai students and two by Americans. The Thai apologies were about the project and confusion, while the two American apologies were about the condition of a picture and missing communication. This team had many more apologies than did Teams One (which had none) or Team Two (which had two). The high number of apologies in this team was likely due to the confusion in the project.
Giving updates.
Team Three students updated each other quite a bit in their CMC, mainly about the project but also about social information. The students with the most updates were
Milk and Krista.
Most of Milk’s updates were about the project. Milk updated the American students on the status of the reports she provided to them. For an earlier draft, she wrote,
“This has not been approved yet but i think there wont be a lot of changes for the approved one.” Then for the approved draft she wrote, “this is the new one that has been approved already. there are some changes about the language, but the content is still the same.” Milk also made sure that the American students kept up with the project by letting 214 them know when she and Dear changed information: “Dear and me are trying to make every thing clear after we had visited our client today. We have updated our new sub- research questions.” Another example is “We have finished designing our question in order to ananlysze the target’s group characteristics.” Milk also updated the American students about what their project plans were: “we are going to visit the site again on this
Monday.” In addition to updating the American students about the project, Milk updated them about her social life: “Tonight, my freinds are going out for the Halloween Party and some clubs. It’s gonna be fun for them. I will let you know what’s like to party here in Thailand, if I go out with them.”
Krista also updated the Thai students on what she was working on and what she and Amber were working on for the project: “We are currently working on revising our
SWOT, 4Ps, client factsheets and industry analysis and should have them posted no later than Monday.”; “We’ve still been looking up information on agritourism in Thailand and the market in Thailand; what people are interested in, past times, thing like that.” Krista also updated them about site visits: “I am also in the process of contacting a farm here” and “I have been searching for similar NGO’s to see how they increase their public awareness. I’m going on a site visit to a farm that gives tours so I will post the results
Wednesday.” She then posted an update that she was not able to visit the farm: “I was unable to visit the farm Wednesday because of a scheduling conflict, but I did find some more information on domestic travel.” One of Krista’s messages included an update that was not project-related, indicating that she was no longer at school. During Thanksgiving break, she wrote that she was at home. 215
Dear updated the American students on the project, for example in the beginning of their correspondence about refining the project: “Milk and I will find out more information this Monday.” Later in the project, she updated them about project change:
“In our sub-research questions, we added how to hold a successful event, what type or what kind the event should be like.” She updated them about their activities, as well:
“What Milk and I are doing now is writing an outline. But before we do it, we did the questionaire, surveying what our target group like.” Her final update is in her final posting: “About the project, Milk and I are rewriting the outline. We found some books about how to promote campaigns and social marketing.” All of Dear’s updates came from both her and Milk (e.g., “Milk and I” or “we”).
Amber included only one update in her messages: “recently me and Krista called a the Jonathan State Park in Florida and asked them about the demographics of their visitors and how they also attract them.” This project update included both Amber and her partner Krista.
Team Three students included more updates in their messages than did students from Teams One or Two. Similar to Teams One and Two, Team Three students included project updates, though they included more non-project updates than did Teams One and
Two. While on Teams One and Two the Thai students gave more updates, on Team
Three updates came from both American and Thai students. Also similar to Teams One and Two, on Team Three both American and Thai students included their teammates in their updates, though the Thai students did this more often. Milk did this in all of her project-related updates, Dear included Milk in all of her updates, Krista did this in some of her updates, and Amber did it in her only update. 216
Being thoughtful.
Team Three was a very thoughtful team. The discussion to clear up confusion on the project discussed in the section “Responding to Messages” was the main example of the consideration and patience that this team showed to each other, but students also showed their thoughtfulness in other ways.
Amber showed the most thoughtfulness beyond the two discussions noted above.
One way Amber was thoughtful was in her requests, such as in this request with an accompanying explanation: “we tried downloading your research proposal but it didn’t work do you think you can send it again??” In addition to using “do you think you can” in her request, Amber also expressed thoughtfulness by using multiple question marks in her requests for information. This strategy had the effect of softening her request. She also asked her Thai teammates if they wanted anything from the U.S.: “Is there anything that you would like us to bring to you from the states??” Amber also wrote brief introductions to her questions, showing thoughtfulness: “just wanted to ask a few questions about the project so we are all on the right track”; and “I have a couple more questions.” A social request of Amber’s was in her bio sketch: “One of my favorite things to do is go out dancing. I love to dance and hopefully maybe we can go out to some clubs while in Thailand.” Amber used “maybe” and “hopefully” to soften the request.
Another example of a request when Amber was thoughtful was during the video conference. The Thai students asked her if she wanted to see temples in Thailand, but she wanted to go dancing. She wrote, “It was really cool that we all got to talk to each other on Wednesday at the video conference… Anyway i would love to see a lot of the temples and cultural things in Thailand but i would also love to go out dancing sometime 217 do you think we could go??” This was thoughtful, as she expressed interest in the Thai culture in addition to expressing her desire to go dancing. It can be noted that though
Amber was thoughtful, she did not use “please” in any of her requests.
A final thoughtful example from Amber was her offer to the Thai students to critique her research: “I don’t know if this will help at all but i thought it might give some ideas on attracting tourists.” Writing this allowed the Thai students to not use her research in their final recommendations if they did not find her research useful.
An occasion where Amber could have been more thoughtful was in her postings of social pictures. She provided very brief information about the pictures, often only stating names of places, so that her Thai teammates likely did not really understand the pictures or their significance. More explanation would have been thoughtful.
Similar to Amber, Krista was thoughtful in her requests: “We had a few questions about the project” and “If you have any more information please let us know.” She also requested the Thai students’ feedback, saying “Please tell me what you think.” Krista used “please” twice in her requests. Krista was also kind in her notes such as, “It was really nice to talk to you today”; “It’s good to hear from you”; “It is good to hear from you Milk”; and “We hope to hear from you again soon :-)” Finally, she was thoughtful when she asked the Thai students if they should know anything about Thailand (“is there anything that you would like us to know about Thailand before we arrive”) and about if the Thai students wear earrings (“I was also wondering if you guys wear earrings”) in order to determine an appropriate gift for them from the States. 218
Krista was thoughtful in how she explained some pictures and not as thoughtful with others. For the Halloween pictures she posted, she did explain Halloween, yet for a project-related visit, she did not explain the pictures.
Milk was also thoughtful. In her requests she used “please,” as illustrated in the interchange above about the confusion in the project. Milk demonstrated thoughtfulness when she offered clarification to the American students about what they needed to focus on for the project: “Don’t worry much about the forestry part.” Another way Milk showed thoughtfulness was when she realized the Americans did not know her yet: “I just realized that I haven’t said hi officially so here I am.” She then shared her interest in the project. In the last message she posted, Milk stated, “I hope that you guys have fun for the rest of your stay in our country.” Finally, in one of her postings Milk closed with,
“Have a nice day and enjoy! (hopefully :D).” Milk also posted pictures. For the one picture she did explain, she wrote, “I dressed like a princess (as you can see my little look-a-like crown on my hair).” She did not explain the other picture she posted.
Dear was thoughtful as well, though most of her thoughtfulness occurred in the discussion the team had about the focus of the project. Dear had one thoughtful request
(“So it would be great if you can find the organization that is more similar to ours.”) when she felt that the organization found by the American students was too different from their client. Dear did not explain the pictures she posted, one of the client’s workspace and the other of her and Milk.
Similar to Team One, Team Three students expressed thoughtfulness by being polite and kind in their requests, being kind in general, offering clarification, and explaining pictures. Their thoughtfulness was also evident in their handling of project- 219 related confusion. Both the Thai and American students were very thoughtful on Team
Three.
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind
Krista noted in an interview that she initially when communicating through the intranet with Milk and Dear, she did modify her English because they were non-native speakers. She used less slang and wrote more simple sentences. After the Skype video conference, however, she realized that their English was quite good and she communicated with them naturally.
The one time in Team Three when the Americans use Thai is when Krista starts her bio sketch with the Thai greeting, “Sa wa dee Kha!” Otherwise, the American students did not speak Thai in their CMC.
Consideration Summary Team Three
Team Three used a variety of techniques to express consideration for each other.
Many techniques were used by both the American and Thai team members relatively equally. Other techniques were used more by the Americans, and others more by the
Thais. The one technique not found in this team was encouragement.
Both the American and Thai students on Team Three responded to teammates’ messages, expressed a connection to the teammates, offered assistance or information, expressed appreciation, offered praise, gave updates, and were thoughtful in their communication. For responding to messages, all team members on Team Three responded to both social and project-related messages. The pattern was generally that the
American students would ask questions, the Thai students would respond, usually repeating the question, and the Americans would frequently thank them. There were more 220 occasions in which the Thai students did not respond to the Americans than the
Americans not responding to the Thais. Another consideration technique used by both the
American and Thai students on Team Three was asking questions showing concern for each other, though this team did not ask many of these questions. Another technique used about equally but rarely in Team Three was explaining or asking about absences, with two instances from an American and a Thai, one each. Students on Team Three also expressed a connection with each other through personalized greetings, referring to each other as “guys.” The American students used the Thai students’ names more in their messages, however, and both American and Thai students signed their teammate’s name in postings. All students offered assistance or information to each other, usually offering project information but also occasionally offering to help. Team Three students expressed appreciation, usually about the project, and they offered praise equally, with all of the praise being about the project. Team Three students updated each other, usually about the project. All students at least occasionally included their teammate’s name or used “we” in their updates, though this happened more with the Thais than the Americans. Finally, all
Team Three students were thoughtful by being polite and kind in their requests. This team had two instances of thoughtful extended discourse.
There were differences in Team Three in the use of certain techniques for expressing consideration. The American students expressed more excitement than did the
Thais, though overall this team did not express a large amount of excitement. Perhaps they expressed less excitement overall because of the problems they had with their project, though it could also be due to personalities. More expressions of excitement came from the American students as their trip to Thailand approached, similar to the 221 other teams. The Thai students offered more apologies than the Americans, with Thai apologies nearly always about the project and American apologies about non-project issues. The difference in apologies was likely due to the project itself, as the Thai students often apologized for the change in direction or uncertainty of their project as conveyed by the client.
Strategies used by Team Three students to form relationships through technology included posting 18 non-project pictures; communicating through the in-class video conference once and out-of-class twice; using humor markers, emoticons, exclamation points, and multiple question marks; using friendly headings for their postings; and using informal spellings/vocabulary.
In sum, Team Three had few techniques not generally shared by both American and Thai students, though they did perform some of the techniques in different ways.
Consideration Summary of Teams One, Two, and Three
The following information summarizes the discourse features of the three teams in this study, giving an overview of the techniques students used to convey consideration and discussing those differences.
Showing Interest in Teammates and Culture
Expressing interest and excitement.
In all the teams the Americans expressed more interest and excitement than did the Thai students, and expressions of excitement grew as the Thailand trip approached.
Americans expressed more interest in culture than did the Thai students, perhaps because the focus of the project was on Thailand. The most excited team was Team One, and the least excited was Team Three. Possible explanations in differences in expressions of 222 excitement are course design (traveling students were likely more excited than non- traveling students) and team and individual personality (more outgoing teams expressed more excitement than less outgoing teams). Certain events prompted more excited messages, including the first communication by the Thai students, the video conference, and the posting of pictures. The Thai teaching assistant felt that sharing pictures and the video conference were very instrumental in the formation of relationships.
Responding to messages.
In all the teams the students responded to each other at a very high rate overall, though all teams did include some messages that were not responded to. In general, the
Thai students had the highest number of messages not responded to, largely due to the fact that no Thai students responded to any messages the Americans had posted before the Thais began using the intranet.
Students responded in different ways depending on their team personality, their project, and on the communication behavior of the Thai students. On Team One, the Thai students asked the American students to do research, the American students reported on their findings, and the Thai students thanked them. This was largely initiated by the team leader Koo. On Team Two the American students responded more than the Thais, likely because the Thai students asked for little from the Americans. On Team Three, the
American students asked more questions regarding the focus of the project focus itself, not for the Thai students to do research, and the Thai students answered their questions with project clarifications. Team Three had the most responses and also had more extended discussion, possibly due to the project confusion but perhaps also due to team 223 personalities. There were no clear patterns across teams on when students repeated questions before answering them.
Asking questions about teammates.
There were not many questions from students about how their teammates were doing. Team Two asked the most questions, with the Americans asking more than the
Thai students. Team Three asked the least, with one Thai and one American asking, and
Team One had more questions from the Thai students. Most questions were general such as “How is it going?” or questions about what the students like to do for fun or classes.
Asking about or explaining absences from communication.
There were few examples of asking about or explaining absences in all three teams. Team Two had no instances of this type of discourse. There was one instance of a student asking where his teammates were after they did not communicate for many days.
This occurred in Team One with Koo asking about Eva and Elizabeth’s absence. There was also one instance of an American explaining her and her teammate’s absence from communication due to their exams, which happened on Team Three. Two Thai students from Teams One and Three explained the absence of their teammates. There were no clear cultural differences in this discourse behavior.
Expressing a connection with teammates.
Expressing a connection with teammates was used frequently by all teams in this study, though in different ways. Most students referred to their teammates as “guys” or
“teammates.” On Teams One and Three, the students used their teammates’ names in openings or in their messages, while this happened rarely in Team Two. Most messages began with casual and personalized greetings and closed with closing phrases and 224 generally the writer’s name. Differences in these practices seem not to be based on culture. Only one student’s closings became more personalized as the course progressed, a Thai student on Team One. Some students signed messages with their own name and teammate name(s), happening with five Thai students and two Americans. This may be a cultural difference. In these situations, sometimes the writer wrote their own name first and sometimes the teammate’s name first, a difference not varying based on cultural background.
Showing Support for Teammates
Offering assistance or information.
All teams had a considerable number of offers for assistance or information across teams. There were no great differences in the number of offers based on cultural background. Types of offers made included offering guidance, offering to find information/help, offering information found, or non-project related offers (e.g., to look at a social networking site or of cultural information). Most offers were related to projects and the most common type of offer was of project information (e.g., “This is our …, please take a look”), though this depended on the team and the student communicating.
Many students also provided information without offering it directly to their teammates.
Expressing appreciation.
The amount of appreciation expressed varied by team, but all teams did express at least some appreciation. Team Three had the most, and Team Two the least. Across all three teams, the Thai students expressed at least a bit more appreciation, with Team Two having a distribution that was closer to being equal (but they had few expressions of appreciation). In Team One, the difference was more pronounced, with the Thai students 225 expressing much more appreciation. Most appreciation was expressed about the project, though non-project related thank you’s were also expressed (e.g., for a picture).
Expressing encouragement.
There was not much encouragement across all three teams. Team One had three expressions of encouragement, all from the Thai student Koo, with two expressions being more social and one project-related. Team Two had three instances of encouragement, two from a Thai and one from an American, with two cases being project-related and one non-project-related. Team Three had no cases of encouragement.
Offering praise.
There were few expressions of praise in all three teams studied. What praise was expressed came equally from Thai and American students. Team One had praise only from the Thai students, Team Two from the Americans, and Team Three had an equal mix of praise. Most praise was about the project, though some social picture-related praise also occurred.
Offering apologies.
With a total of nine apologies, Team Three had many more than did Teams One and Two. Team Three apologies mainly came from the Thai students and were project- related, especially related to project confusion. Team Two had two apologies, one from an American student and one from a Thai. Team One had no apologies.
Giving updates.
All the teams kept each other updated through their communication. In Teams
One and Two, the Thai students updated their American teammates more than the
Americans updated the Thais, while in Team Three the distribution was equal. Most 226 updates were project-related. Many students, both American and Thai, included their partners in their updates (e.g., “we” or “Milk and I”). Team Three had the most updates in general and had the most non-project related updates. The higher number of updates in
Team Three was likely due to the problems they experienced in their project, as the focus shifted many times.
Being thoughtful.
Thoughtfulness in this study refers to students demonstrating in their discourse that they were thinking about and being kind to their communication partners. All the teams expressed thoughtfulness, though in different ways. There was no one technique used by all students to express thoughtfulness, though more common techniques included making general well-wishing remarks (e.g., “I hope some of this was helpful”), being kind and polite in requests, and explaining pictures or information. Collaborative discourse was used occasionally, but only by American students. There was one Thai student who used the Thai word ka to express thoughtfulness, and Team Three showed considerable thoughtfulness in their team discussion over project-related confusion.
Many students in all teams missed the opportunity to be thoughtful when they sent pictures, as they rarely described the context for their partners. Interviews with the
American students reveal that the Americans were being thoughtful in their communication with the Thai students in order to form relationships; it is not as clear with the Thai students, however, to what extent they were being thoughtful because they cared about their American partners or if they were simply acting characteristically Thai. 227
Communicating with the Teammates’ Language in Mind
Examining the students’ discourse, not many students appeared to communicate with their teammates’ language in mind. On Team One, the American students tried to speak Thai to their Thai teammates on the phone; on Team Two, a Thai student used and explained a Thai word and an American explained a potentially unknown English word to her Thai teammates; and on Team Three an American student used a Thai greeting in her CMC. Interviews, though, revealed that the American students did think about the
Thai students being non-native English speakers, mainly trying to use more formal language and less slang. It is interesting to note from an instructor’s perspective that the language the American students used in their intranet communication could be considered informal even though the students viewed it as formal.
In an interview, the Thai teaching assistant indicated that the Thai students likely did not understand everything the American students wrote, especially more informal words or phrases. She doubted that the Thai students would ask the American students what they meant, though that was unfortunate, as asking would benefit them. She felt that because the Thai students were communicating in English for an English class, they likely tried to modify their writing to be more like the American students. The teaching assistant also felt that it would be beneficial if more American students used Thai in the intranet, as the Thai students likely really enjoy seeing Thai and seeing the students try to use it. Actually, the GLC students were taught Thai in class and could have used it, at least some greetings and a few words. 228
Chapter Summary
This study has analyzed the participation and discourse of three teams in an intercultural virtual learning community. Participation rates in a number of areas were first analyzed, including the total number of postings in each team, the frequency and pacing of postings, the interactivity of each team, social postings, and postings of social pictures. Analysis indicated that students posted on average at least eight messages per week, included considerable social content in messages, and posted social pictures largely at key times such as holidays or after the video conference. The American students posted approximately twice as many messages as the Thais. While there were some differences in the amounts of some of the participation factors (e.g., in total number of postings per team and number and percent of social pictures posted), in many aspects the teams were similar in their participation rates (e.g., percent of student postings from the Thais, percent of messages with social content, and number and percent of purely social messages). While cultural background was not found to be a large factor in participation differences, course design likely played a role (for example, in the decrease in communication after the GLC classes ended).
An analysis of the discourse of the three teams shows that all teams conveyed consideration in their discourse. Consideration was expressed broadly by students showing interest in their teammates and their culture, showing support for their teammates, and communicating with their teammates’ language in mind. Within each of these areas, more specific techniques were used by students to convey consideration. The most commonly used techniques for conveying consideration were responding to messages, expressing a connection with teammates, offering assistance or information, 229 and being thoughtful. The only clear difference in discourse between the Thai and
American students in these areas was with responding to messages, with the American students responding to more messages than the Thais. This is likely due to course design, as none of the Thai students responded to messages posted before they began using the intranet.
Other differences between the Thai and American discourse were apparent across all teams, though they were not necessarily due to cultural background. For example, the
American students expressed more excitement and interest than did the Thais; this was likely due to course design. Also, the Americans signed their formal names (first and last names as opposed to just first names or nicknames) to messages more than the Thais.
This occurred with three American students and one Thai student. In interviews, the
American students explained that their use of their first and last names did not mean anything, and the Thai teaching assistant felt that the Thai student’s use of his formal name (as opposed to his nickname) was likely not important either. An interview with one of the Thai student’s teammates showed that she did not even notice his use of his formal name. It is difficult to say what the cause of this difference would be.
Another example of differences between the Thai and American students is in students signing their own name and a teammate’s name to a message, expressing connection to the team. This happened more with Thai students than with Americans.
This could be a difference due to computer accessibility, but the Thai teaching assistant indicated that this could also be a cultural difference based on Thai study habits. She said the Thai students were more likely to work together on all group projects, completing all activities together, sitting at the same computer. In general, they work together more and 230 would thus be more likely to write both names in their messages. Also, they might have worked together more since they were communicating in a second language. This is in contrast to the American students, who likely only worked together because their group project deadlines demanded it. GLC students generally divide team work, work individually, and then re-group to compile the final report, as opposed to the Thai students who work together through the whole process.
Thai students also expressed more appreciation than did the Americans. This could be due to course design as the Thais were in contact with the client and in a position to thank the American students for their help with the client. Another explanation could be culture, though, since the Americans also needed information from the Thai students. The Thai teaching assistant interviewed indicated that perhaps the Thai students expressed more appreciation to the Americans because they were working with international partners. Communicating with other Thai students, they perhaps would not have expressed as much appreciation. In contrast, the American students likely did not alter the amount of appreciation they expressed just because they were working with Thai students. Changing appreciation patterns when working with international partners might be a Thai trait. Further research would be needed to determine if this difference in expressions of appreciation was due to cultural background or to course design.
An analysis of the discourse in all three team boxes in this study shows that students have a variety of ways to convey consideration. The main ways are responding to messages, expressing a connection with teammates, offering assistance or information, and being thoughtful. Differences in how students conveyed consideration could be due to culture in some areas, but this study did not reveal any difference that show a definite 231 connection to cultural background. Other possible reasons for differences could be team or individual student personalities, course design, computer skills/experience with an online course, instructor, or students communicating in a second language. More research is needed to determine the reasons behind the differences in discourse between students from different cultures interacting in a virtual learning community.
Based on the results of the discourse analysis and on information from interviews, the students in this study used a number of strategies to build relationships using technology. These techniques were in addition to strategies that communicators use in face-to-face relationships. The students demonstrated concern for each other, posted personal pictures, talked on the phone, saw each other through the video conference, used humor markers (e.g., “ha ha” or “LOL”), used emoticons, used exclamation points and excessive punctuation, used friendly headings for their postings, and used informal spellings/vocabulary. These strategies have been documented in the literature. This study also found strategies used by students that have not been documented: directing partners to a social networking site and referring partners to internet links for non-project information.
232
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
After giving an overview of the research questions, methodology, scope, and main findings of this research project, this chapter will discuss each of the research questions, identify teaching implications, and specify areas for future research.
The aim of this research was to understand the nature of the discourse students used in their relationships in an intercultural virtual learning community. As such, the questions guiding this research were (a) What was the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an intercultural virtual learning community? (b) Did the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an intercultural virtual learning community differ between students from different cultures? and if so, how?
What other factors in addition to culture might have influenced the students’ discourse? and (c) What strategies did the students engage in to use technology to form and maintain relationships?
The context for this study was a course between undergraduate students from
Ohio University’s Global Leadership Center and a large Thai university’s English
Department. The students collaborated together in English in intercultural teams for six weeks primarily through an online intranet before meeting face-to-face and spending two weeks together in Thailand. The American students began using the intranet approximately 10 days before the Thais began due to university schedules. Each team worked for a different client (a total of 12), with each team receiving guidance from at least one GLC and one Thai university faculty member (a total of four GLC faculty and four Thai university faculty were involved in the project). Of the total 54 students, thirteen participants on three teams were chosen for this study, six Thai students and 233 seven Americans. American participants were chosen based on their feelings of community (as measured by Rovai’s, 2002b, survey, see Appendix D), their ongoing communication past course completion, and observation data. Thai students were automatically chosen as they were on the teams of the American students. Due to the researcher’s location in the United States, the American students were identified as the primary focus of this study.
Discourse analysis was the primary methodology used in this study, supplemented with interview and observation data. Following the guidelines outlined by Herring
(2004), concepts of intercultural virtual relationships and language characterizing those concepts were identified in the literature (see Appendices A-C). These concepts and language characteristics provided a preliminary basis and coding scheme (see Appendix
F) for the analysis of the students’ computer-mediated communication, using qualitative software for coding. The preliminary coding scheme was modified during analysis of the discourse into a scheme that included one core code (see Appendix G). Three students and one Thai teaching assistant were interviewed in order to provide clarity and depth to the analysis. Also analyzed were observation notes of the American students during class time and a video recording and notes of a video conference between the Thai and
American students.
In a study with this large amount of data covering a large period of time, it was necessary to limit the scope and analysis of the data. Potential areas of research (e.g., self-disclosure among students, particularly depending on cultural background, and how this related to relationship-development; the Thai students’ experiences; or the amount to which students’ language became more similar over time) were necessarily not fully 234 investigated due to time and resource limitations. Interesting avenues of research were left for future study so that one main area could be more fully investigated in this collection of data: how the participants expressed consideration.
The core code that emerged in the analysis of the participants’ discourse and through interviews with students was that all the students expressed consideration in their teams. Consideration was also an important factor found in Bikowski (2007). In this study, different teams and different teammates expressed consideration differently. Three main consideration techniques were found (see Appendix G): stating interest in the teammates and their culture, showing support for teammates, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. There were several more specific techniques within these three main codes, but the most commonly used techniques across all teams were responding to messages, expressing a connection with teammates, offering assistance or information, and being thoughtful. The least commonly used techniques were asking questions about teammates, asking about or explaining absences, expressing encouragement, and offering praise. Certain events triggered more excited communication and more picture sharing. These included the Skype video conference with all students, American and Thai holidays, and when the Thai students began communicating on the intranet.
The findings in this study contribute to the literature as they tie together findings from many other studies under the one concept of consideration. This research shows the overlap between work on intercultural understanding by Byram (1997), the discourse of relationships by Brown and Levinson (1987), social presence by Short, Williams, and
Christie (1976), and transactional presence by Shin (2003). 235
With regard to possible differences between the discourse of the Thai and
American students, few differences were found that could be linked to the students’ different cultures. Potentially due to cultural background, the Thai students expressed more appreciation in their intranet discourse. Other differences in discourse between the
Thai and American students were found: the Americans expressed more excitement, responded to messages more, and posted more messages in general. Possible causes include course design, the project itself, different instructors, individual and team personalities, different roles within a team, students’ native language, comfort with technology or experience with online courses, and gender. Further research would be required to determine the causes for differences in discourse.
Students used a variety of strategies involving technology in order to form relationships, including talking on their cell phones; having one to three Skype video conferences; sharing photographs through the intranet; directing partners to social networking sites for personal information; including internet links for non-project information; and making their messages more personalized through using humor markers, emoticons, exclamation points, friendly headings, informal spelling/vocabulary, and excessive punctuation.
Research Question One: The Nature of the Discourse
The first question driving this research was, What was the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an intercultural virtual learning community?
The nature of the discourse in the three teams studies was that it was considerate. It is not surprising that consideration was important to the Thai students, as consideration, or kreng jai in Thai, is one of the core Thai values identified by Komin (1990). For the 236
American students, they likely expressed consideration for their Thai teammates because they were interested in forming relationships with students from different cultures and they were willing to take risks to accomplish that goal (Bikowski, 2007). Different students did express consideration in different ways, however.
Consideration as Expressed Differently in Different Groups
Discourse analysis and interviews revealed that different groups expressed consideration differently. For example, some students posted a large number of messages, while other students posted considerably fewer. Ping, Neal, and Som, for example, posted three (Ping) and seven (Neal and Som) messages, while Krista and Amber posted 25 each. These differences did not seem to affect communication or relationships, as indicated in student interviews. Students who posted few messages were perceived as being hard workers and strong team members; students seemed to be forgiving of each other. Apparently the number of messages posted is not an indicator of student relationships in an intercultural virtual learning community. Similarly, consideration differed in picture sharing. Teams Two and Three shared considerably more pictures (44 and 37 respectively) than did Team One (8 total). This difference in sharing pictures did not seem to affect the formation of relationships. Some students explained their pictures more than others. This seems to be another area where students were forgiving. Even if pictures were not explained, recipients acknowledged them. Also, the types of pictures shared could play a role in the perception, for example with silly pictures contributing to relationship formation. There appear to be many ways to express consideration through participation and picture sharing. 237
Another example of differences is how students expressed their consideration overall. Team One showed consideration through excitement while Team Three did so through responding to messages and apologizing. This difference could be due to the differences in projects. Team One had a relatively straightforward project, while team
Three experienced considerable project confusion. Thus, Team Three students felt more frustration (as indicated in an interview) and had to spend more of their discourse ensuring that all team members maintained positive attitudes during the project, resulting in more apologies and long message exchanges. Alternatively, individual personalities could also have played a role in the different ways to express consideration. Team One students were all described as outgoing, while Team Three students were more reserved.
Consideration was also expressed differently in how students expressed thoughtfulness. All Team One students were kind and polite in their requests, Team Two students included more cultural information and in general explained pictures they posted more than did Teams One and Two, and Team Three students showed thoughtfulness in the way they kindly handled project confusion. Differences in expressing a connection were also found. For example, in Teams One and Three, students used their teammates’ names in openings or messages, but this was not the case in Team Two.
These examples illustrate that consideration is more than simply using certain techniques. For example, students cannot simply use emoticons and expect to build relationships. The techniques must be used for a purpose. More important than specific things students write or do is that students do them for a reason, which in this case was to express consideration. 238
Findings not Discussed in Previous Research
This study revealed three findings not previously discussed in the literature. The first is in regards to students using collaborative discourse. Collaborative discourse invites cooperation among the team and facilitates the building of relationships, ensuring that any feedback will be considered and that there is a strong desire to work together.
For example, on Team One Eva wrote, “hope this is good for you, let us know your ideas and well put it all together!!!” Another example of collaborative feedback is, “i went to different places here, and picked up numerous pamplets articles and papers in hopes of finding …, to get informed. these pamphlets contain very good information, and we can take them, and use them to try to….” This discourse is more than an invitation for feedback as discussed by Cassell and Tversky (2005). Collaborative discourse did not occur often in the students’ discourse, and it only occurred in American students’ communication.
Another finding not discussed in previous work is students including same- country teammates in their messages. This occurred either by a message writer signing teammates’ names or by the writer referring to another teammate in the message (e.g.,
“Milk and I”). It is not clear whether the messages in which this occurred were composed by the students working together or if the message writers chose to include their in- country teammates. Including in-country partners in messages conveyed the meaning of teams expressing a feeling of connection to the whole group, as students seemed to be working together. Cassell and Tversky (2005) looked at how often young online community members used we vs. I to determine the degree to which they felt a sense of community and found that the users used we more and I less as time passed. This study is 239 similar, as the use of teammates’ names also shows connection, but the finding in this study does not focus on I vs. we but rather on the explicit inclusion of teammates’ names in the same messages.
Another finding not seen in other research is how students communicating in a non-native language within a virtual learning community handle concepts that are difficult to communicate in the second language. Looking at the participants in this study, one Thai student, Jum, used the Thai word ka twice in her communication and frequently in her spoken English, according to one American teammate. Jum was described as a very polite and rather conservative and formal student by her American teammates. The term ka was described by the Thai teaching assistant as being a politeness and respect marker used by women and one that has no translation in English. The use of ka by Jum in her intranet discourse was perceived by her American teammates as a way to communicate consideration and respect. Using non-English words in English language
CMC in a virtual learning community in order to express consideration is an area that merits further research.
The terms that students used to refer to each other in an intercultural virtual learning community have also not been discussed in other studies. Research has indicated that communicators use in-group terms to refer to each other when they are in a relationship (Brown & Levinson, 1987), but this study identifies the words students use.
This study found that students from both the U.S. and Thailand commonly used the word
“guys” to refer to each other, in addition to “teammates” less often. Students also occasionally used the words “boys” and “kids,” but only American students used these terms to refer to their Thai teammates. The terms “boys” and “kids” are similar to “guys” 240 but have a more juvenile connotation. More research may reveal if students use different terms in virtual learning communities depending on the cultural make-up of the members, how students decide which terms to use, and if the different terms affect relationship formation.
Findings that Differ from Previous Research
One finding in this study that differs from previous work surrounds the use of formal names in discourse. Brown and Levinson (1987) and Ware (2005) note that less formal names are used by communicators as they develop relationships. However, in this study, it was found that students on each team used their formal names later in team communication. Examples are an American student her signing first and last name or a
Thai student signing his formal Thai name instead of his nickname. When interviewed, the American students indicated that the use of their formal names had no meaning—that they occasionally sign their formal names in other contexts for no reason. Also, an interviewed American student indicated that she did not even notice her Thai teammate’s use of his formal name and ascribed no meaning to it. The Thai teaching assistant agreed that the formal name likely had no meaning. Thus, in this study, the use of formal names appears to provide no information about the relationship of the communicators.
Another finding differing from those in the literature is in regards to how often messages are posted. Suler (2004) notes that changes in the frequency, spontaneity, and rhythm of postings can be seen as relationships evolve. In this study, though, differences in when messages were posted appear to have also been based on course-related events
(e.g., deadlines), video communication, or holidays, in addition to relationship formation.
Increased communication around deadlines was found, however, by Kienle and 241
Ritterskamp (2007). For relationships forming within the context of an intercultural virtual learning community, the posting of messages can also be due to other factors in addition to relationship building.
A third difference between this study and previous work is in the role of minor mistakes within CMC. Suler (2004) notes the role that spelling and formatting mistakes can have in helping communicators feel more spontaneity and friendship. Many of the students interviewed said they were careful not to make spelling mistakes, however, because of their teammates not being native English speakers. Spelling mistakes did still occur in the Americans’ CMC, but at least for some students, it is assumed that there were fewer mistakes. Allowing spelling mistakes may well be a custom more frequently practiced between native instead of non-native speakers in English. On the other hand, some students did allow many spelling and formatting mistakes (e.g., Eva on Team One).
There appear to be differences based on personality and perhaps perception of language proficiency as well.
Finally, a difference was found between this study and work by Morse (2003) on high- and low-context cultures. Morse (2003) found that CMC can be biased against students from high-context cultures because interfaces are based on cultural-specific learning patterns and because of technology differences. This study did not perceive any cultural bias against the Thai students in the Western-formatted intranet used for class.
However, the Thai students may have been confused with the interface and not mentioned it. As the Thai teaching assistant noted, the Thai students would likely not ask many questions even if they were confused. Further research would provide more clarification into this area. 242
Findings Similar to Previous Research
A number of findings that emerged from this study are similar to results found in published work. This section discusses a few of the most interesting similarities between this study and previous studies. For example, the concept of consideration found in this study is similar to the concept of text empathy discussed by Suler (2004). Coming from a psychology background, Suler (2004) defines text empathy as “an intuitive feeling for what the others might be feeling or thinking” (p. 38). The Oxford English dictionary
(1989) defines empathy as “The power of projecting one’s personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation,” and consideration as “Regard for the circumstances, feelings, comfort, etc. of another; thoughtfulness for another; thoughtful kindness.” While both concepts are similar, empathy extends the concept of consideration, with the sender “fully comprehending” the recipient’s mind. In this study, consideration is a more appropriate term, as full comprehension was not evident, yet the students did show considerable thoughtfulness and kindness toward each other. Suler
(2004) notes ways that communicators can relate empathy that were also found in this study, such as by anticipating and meeting the recipient’s needs, responding to messages, asking questions about the recipient’s life, and using techniques to make the CMC more similar to face-to-face conversation.
Another finding similar to the literature was Byram’s (1997) work on intercultural understanding. One concept from Byram’s (1997) model that students in this study demonstrated included having an open and curious attitude about communicating with their intercultural partners. The participants in this study showed they were willing to work together in an equal relationship, showed they cared about their partner’s opinions 243 and views, and tried to produce culturally appropriate communication. Another concept from Byram’s (1997) model found in this study was the skill of interpreting, for example by the students explaining their cultures from the partner’s perspective and also finding common ground between the cultures. Byram’s (1997) skill of cultural awareness was also found in this study, as the students used language that showed they were sensitive and polite of the other culture and they negotiated with each other in a sensitive manner.
The linguistic features in the students’ CMC are similar to social email messages found in research by Mallon and Oppenheim (2002). These include trailing dots, spelling mistakes and creative spellings, contractions, excessive punctuation, and instances of failing to use capital letters in the social messages. Also similar to Mallon and
Oppenheim (2002), the messages in this study usually did not begin with Dear.
Thus, the discourse the participants used in their communication with each other was considerate and varied depending on factors such as personality or team. While some findings are similar to those in previous research, this study has provided more insight on topics not previously discussed in the literature such as collaborative discourse, the effect of students including teammate names in their messages, how students communicate difficult-to-translate concepts from their native language in a second language, and terms students use to refer to each other.
Research Question Two: Comparing Students’ Discourse
The second research question for this study was, Did the nature of the discourse used in relationships between students in an intercultural virtual learning community differ between students from different cultures? and if so, how? What other factors in addition to culture might have influenced the students’ discourse? Analysis indicated that 244 the discourse was more similar than different between the Thai and American students.
The Thais and Americans were similar in their discourse in 10 consideration techniques and differed in four consideration techniques. Most of the four areas where there were differences were likely not due to cultural background alone.
The 10 consideration techniques that the Thai and American students used similarly or which were inconclusive were expressing connection, offering assistance or information, being thoughtful, asking questions that show concern/interest in teammates, asking about/explaining absences from communication, giving praise, expressing encouragement, apologizing, giving updates, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. The four areas of difference are discussed below.
Differences in Thai and American Student Discourse
Areas in which the Thai and American students differed in their consideration- related discourse included the posting of messages, responding to messages, expressions of excitement, and expressions of appreciation.
American students posted more messages during the online portion of the course than did the Thai students. This difference was likely due to course design, but cultural background might also have played a role. The Thais posted half as many messages as the Americans, probably because they were on the intranet for a shorter period of time.
The Thai students also may not have felt as much a part of the intranet space and less comfortable using it. Their names did not appear in the course intranet general names listing along with the other students’ names, but rather under a field titled Not
Categorized. In addition, the space the Thai students used was the GLC space: it had been used by the GLC students previously, and in order to access it the Thai students had 245 to enter through the GLC main web site. Also, the Thai students were not required to post all of their course assignments to the intranet, while the American students were required to do so. Cultural background could have also played a role in participation differences.
As Morse (2003) notes, high-context culture students may be used to more structure than most online courses provide, and they may be at a disadvantage due to the lack of visual cues. The absence of tone of voice cues and other nonverbal communication to show concern might also cause difficulties (Li, 1999). These factors could have played a role in the Thais posting fewer messages. More research would be needed to determine the role of cultural background and course design in students’ postings.
Another area where the Thai and American discourse differed was in responses to messages. The Americans in this study responded to messages more often than did the
Thais. This was likely because of course design. No Thai students responded to any messages that their American teammates posted before the Thais began using the intranet. It is possible that the Thai students did not think that the early messages were meant for them or it is possible that because they were not required to read them they simply did not. Because the Thai students responded to messages and ideas consistently otherwise, this is likely not a cultural difference.
A third area of difference was in excitement, with the Americans expressing more excitement than the Thais. This is likely also due to course design, though cultural background might also have had an effect. The American students could have expressed more excitement because they would be traveling, yet it is also possible that Americans do use more expressive vocabulary in general than do Thais. Komin (1990) notes that
Thais show “restraint from emotions in general” (p. 182). A review of the video tape of 246 the Skype video conference also indicates that in general the Thai students were more restrained than the Americans, though this could have been due to comfort with technology and communicating publicly in a second language. More research would be needed to determine if cultural background could play a role in differences in expressions of excitement between high- and low-context communicators.
Expressions of appreciation were also different between the Thai and American students, and this difference was possibly culturally-based. The Thai students in this study expressed more appreciation than did the Americans. While it is possible that more appreciation was expressed by the Thais because of project confusion, for example in
Team Three, this explanation does not explain all three teams. In Team One, the Thai students expressed much more appreciation than the Americans, and their project had little confusion. The Americans had the opportunity to express appreciation but did not.
The Thai teaching assistant in her interview indicated that this difference might be cultural, as perhaps in general Thais expect other Thais to help and thus do not express as much appreciation, whereas when a non-Thai helps it is unexpected and they express more appreciation.
Thus, the Thai and American discourse was more similar than dissimilar and likely did not differ just based on cultural background. In general, areas that differed included the posting of messages, responding to messages, expressions of excitement, and expressions of appreciation. The consideration techniques that the Thai and
American students used similarly or which were inconclusive were expressing connection, offering assistance or information, being thoughtful, asking questions that show concern/interest in teammates, asking about/explaining absences from 247 communication, giving praise, expressing encouragement, apologizing, giving updates, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. Possible explanations for why the discourse was more similar than different are given in the next section.
Reasons for the Similarity in Discourse between Thai and American Students
Perhaps the largest reason for the overall similarity between the Thai and
American student discourse in the intranet studied was that young people are increasingly becoming more similar regardless of their native culture (Yum & Hara, 2005). This may especially be true in this study since the participants were educated and work in professional careers after graduation. Young people who are educated and are exposed to a variety of cultures (as were all the participants in this study) and media may well be more similar than people from the same culture but from different generations or socio- economic groups. These participants may have shared similar attitudes, which Kim
(1991) found to be more important than cultural similarity in building relationships.
The American and Thai students might have had similar discourse because they created what Koole and ten Thije (2001) term a “discursive interculture,” a place where
“participants mutually shape discourse” (p. 585). Some of the American students said they modified their discourse for the Thai students. As Bucholtz (2000) notes, electronic communication has been influenced by the larger number of communicators from non-
Western countries; communicating with non-English speakers produced changes in the discourse of some of the American students. The Thai students may have modified their discourse when communicating with the GLC students as well. The Thai teaching assistant commented that they likely tried to write more like the American students, similar to Ess and Sudweeks’s (2005) finding that communicators from collectivistic 248 cultures mimic what is considered to be more Western behavior and Herring’s (1996) finding that minority groups adapt their CMC to be more similar to that of the majority.
Overall, this research supports Koole & ten Thije (2001) as they advocate for more focus on similarities rather than differences between intercultural communicators.
Factors in addition to Culture Potentially Affecting Discourse
While culture likely did not play a large role in the differences found in the discourse of the Thai and American students, other factors could have played a part. The fact that the Thai students were communicating in a second language certainly affected their discourse. It is possible that they were not able to express or understand subtleties due to language limitations, similar to Belz’s (2003) finding of students unable to form relationships because of linguistic limitations. Suler (2004) notes that students’ experiences with writing in general can affect their communication, which would particularly be true for nonnative communicators. The fact that the language of communication for the course was English might have led the native English speakers to post more messages as well. Confirming potential differences in discourse due to language through research may be difficult, however, as the Thai teaching assistant noted that they likely would not admit to not understanding.
Another likely cause for differences in discourse is the course itself: the course design and the projects each team worked on. The American students starting intranet communication before their Thai partners likely resulted in the Thais not reading the first messages posted by the Americans. The course design of only the Americans traveling probably led to more excitement expressed by the American students. The different projects the students had could also have influenced their discourse. For example, Team 249
Three had discourse that was different from the other teams (e.g., more apologies, more extended discussion, more updates) likely because their project was less clear than the others. The other teams’ projects were more well-defined, resulting in less need to update or apologize.
Individual personalities undoubtedly contributed to differences in discourse between all the students. Oberlander and Gill (2006) found that email communicators’ discourse differed depending on their personalities. For example, extroverted individuals used more adjectives, expressed certainty more, used more first person pronouns, referred to people by name more often, and had more social process discourse. Bikowski (2007) also noted the importance of students’ personalities in the establishment of relationships.
In this study, in addition to each student having their own personality, each team had its own personality: Team One was more outgoing and excited, Team Three was the most reserved, and Team Two was in the middle. Interestingly, the Team Three reticent
American students in fact posted more messages than did the more outgoing Americans on Team One. This lends support to the idea that quiet users can communicate more online than in face-to-face interactions (Sullivan, 2001), though the greater number of messages in Team Three could also have been due to team project confusion.
Related to personalities is team roles, which could also have affected the discourse produced. Team One had a clear leader dominating many consideration techniques. Koo was the only student on Team One to ask or explain absences or express encouragement, he made the most offers in the team, he expressed the most appreciation, and his discourse was the most thoughtful. Team Two had no clear team leader (Amy and
Jum shared the role) and no student dominated consideration techniques as in Team One. 250
Team Three had a leader, Milk, but in an interview a teammate said that all students to some extent shared the role. In Team Three there is no clear dominance by Milk in consideration techniques in her discourse (she dominated in only three areas: more offers, more appreciation, and more apologies). The effects of team roles is an area in online virtual communities that would benefit from research.
Different instructors could also have affected the students’ discourse. Shea (2006) found that students in online classes reported stronger feelings of community if they felt that their instructors demonstrated more behaviors that indicated teaching presence such as “directed facilitation” (¶ 23). In this study, some instructors were more active in the teams’ discussion areas (e.g., GLC faculty member 3 posted a total of 35 messages in
Team Three’s box), while others posted very few messages (e.g., 1 message posted by
Thai faculty member 2 in Team One). Overall, the American instructors posted more messages than did the Thais, perhaps because it was a GLC space. Team One averaged eight messages for GLC faculty and one for the Thai university instructor, Team Two seven for the GLC and six for the Thai university instructor, Team Three averaged 15 for the GLC instructors and three for the Thai university faculty. Added to instructor differences is the fact that not all GLC instructors were American (there was one Thai teaching assistant) and not all of the Thai university instructors were Thai (there was one
American faculty member). While many GLC instructors contributed to many boxes, the
Thai university instructors only posted messages in the boxes of the teams they were working with. It is feasible that teams with more of an instructor presence communicated differently than did teams with little instructor activity. Also, the cultural background of the instructors could have affected the students’ discourse. Instructors could also have 251 worked behind the scenes and affected how well the teams stayed on task or answered each other’s questions. More research would be needed to more fully understand the influence of instructors in intercultural virtual learning communities.
Comfort with technology or experience with online courses might also have caused some differences in discourse. Brown (2001) found that students who had experience with online learning were able to spend more time on building relationships and community in online learning contexts than were students who were newer to online courses. Tu (2002) found that confidence in keyboard skills was important in developing social presence. The Thai students having less experience with online courses might have affected their postings and content. Though the Thai students in this study were described by the Americans as having strong computer skills, it is possible that they might not have been as comfortable communicating in English through CMC, particularly considering the considerable differences between the English and Thai writing/typing systems.
A final possible contributor to the differences between the American and Thai students’ discourse could be gender. Herring (1996) found differences in CMC between men and women, specifically that women’s messages were more interactive and with more information, while men’s messages were more likely to express their opinions and criticisms. However, Hancock, Landrigan, and Silver (2007) found that gender did not play a role in the assessment or expression of emotions through CMC. Panyametheekul and Herring (2003) found that women had different communication behaviors in their
CMC than typically-expected cultural behaviors, with Thai women participating more than men in a chat room. This study is not able to make any conclusions about discourse and gender, however, due to the small number of males in the sample. The three males 252
(two Thai and one American) had different discourse profiles though they were all described as outgoing. The Thai student Koo had 24% of Team One’s total postings, Ping on Team One had only 5% of the team’s postings, and Neal on Team Two had 14% of his team’s postings. Thus, it cannot be said that the males on the teams dominated. While
Koo was described as a team leader, Neal was described as a “blender” who could make everyone on the team work together better, and Ping was described as a hard worker who let Koo do the posting while he did much of the research. The consideration in their discourse reflected these descriptions, with Koo’s discourse demonstrating many of the techniques found overall, Ping demonstrating few, and Neal in the middle. Thus, further research would be needed on the area of gender and discourse in an intercultural virtual learning community in order to understand this issue further.
While the Thai and American students exhibited more similarities in their discourse than differences, there were some differences in their discourse in this online virtual learning community. Culture may have played a role in some of the differences, but many other potential influences exist. Determining the roles of each of the potential influences on the discourse in this sample is outside of the scope of this study, but is an area that would benefit from more research. While it may seem natural to attribute discourse differences to culture, as young people are becoming increasingly similar (Yum
& Hara, 2005), researchers should remain open to the possibility of many other influences.
Research Question Three: Strategies used to Form Relationships through Technology
The third research question in this study was, What strategies did the students engage in to use technology to form and maintain relationships? This study found a 253 number of strategies that students used to form and maintain relationships, supporting
Herring’s (2001) statement that CMC users adapt “the computer medium to their expressive needs” (p. 617).
Similar to findings by Parks and Floyd (1996), in this study the participants used their cell phones to enhance communication and build relationships through the intranet.
This study found that using cell phones helped motivate some students to become more acquainted with their distance partners and realize that they were real people. The cell phones also helped students bond, but only if the Thai students’ English skills were advanced enough to support comfortable communication. Otherwise, talking on the phone was frustrating for the Americans and not recommended for team communication.
Students also used Skype to have video conferences, with the whole class participating in a video conference with all the Thai students, and with Team Three participating in an additional two Skype video conferences. This channel of communication worked well for all the teams, though in different ways. All the teams were energized by their Skype video conference, Team Three also used it for more project discussion, and a student on Team Two felt that it caused her to be interested in the Thai students as real people. The Thai students also commented on the video conference in their intranet messages, stating their excitement and nervousness. This study supports Suler’s (2004) recommendation for expanding communication types with video contact, but this recommendation should be considered in context, as it may not work well for communicators with less language proficiency.
Participants in this study also sent each other photographs, with each of the three teams sending pictures and roughly 80% of the pictures exchanged being non-project 254 related. The smallest number of pictures sent was eight (Team One), while the largest number was 44 (Team Two). Parks and Floyd (1996) and Suler (2004) note that exchanging pictures can be beneficial for building relationships online. This study supported those findings. The students were able to exchange fun pictures (for example, the picture of the Team One American students posing as if they were arrested), project- related pictures, family or friend pictures, and cultural pictures (for example, of holidays).
Most of the pictures were ones taken by the students, but the Thai students also included some pictures they had clearly obtained from a website, for example of a holiday or cultural event. In addition to the students enjoying sending the pictures, in their online discourse students also commented that they enjoyed receiving them.
Similar to sending pictures is describing place by users (Roberts, A., 2004). The participants in this study did describe their contexts (e.g., cities, universities, homes), but not as much as they could have. Even when they sent pictures, they often did not give the necessary background for the recipients to understand the significance of the picture and its relationship to the sender. Giving their recipients a better sense of place is one area that students from both countries in this study could have improved on.
Having at least some face-to-face contact has also been identified in the literature as a strategy for people to develop or maintain relationships (Parks & Floyd, 1996; Suler,
2004). This was the case in this study, as the American participants indicated through their discourse and in interviews how excited they were to spend time with their Thai teammates in person. The anticipation of meeting face-to-face motivated some
Americans to work to know their Thai teammates virtually. 255
Participants in this study also introduced each other to other virtual networks, a strategy identified by Parks & Floyd (1996). Megan on Team Two noted that she “made” her Thai teammates join the social network facebook, where they still communicate. All teams communicated with at least one team member through facebook.
Text-based strategies that participants used to form relationships with technology included using humor markers (e.g., “ha, ha, ha,” Bretag, 2006); small spelling or formatting mistakes in messages (Suler, 2004); exclamation points (Roberts, R., 2004;
Suler, 2004); excessive punctuation (Mallon & Oppenheim, 2002); trailers (Suler, 2004); and emoticons (Bretag, 2006; Tu, 2002). Emoticons were not found in all the students’ discourse, however, and were not common in the discourse in general. This finding is similar to Hancock, Landrigan, and Silver (2007), who found that emoticons were used infrequently. There were also some text-based strategies not used by the participants in this study, including using visual-based CMC phrases such as I’m raising my hand
(Herring, 2001) and using parenthetical expressions (e.g., sigh) or voice accentuation
(e.g., *ASTERISKS*) (Suler, 2004).
Students in this study demonstrated concern in their messages; while these techniques are not limited to technology-based relationships, they did appear particularly helpful in building relationships in that context. They used friendly headings (Suler,
2004), such as by using teammates’ names, a Thai greeting, or silly openers such as “yo” or “hiya.” They presented themselves positively, which can facilitate virtual relationships
(Walther & Burgoon, 1992). For example, they did not reveal the frustration they felt
(e.g., as experienced by Team Three), sent upbeat pictures, told fun stories, and used humor. Finally, they did not engage in flaming or outbursts (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996). 256
Herring (2001) notes that one way communicators can show connection is by quoting previous messages or providing links to previous messages. This study found some cases of quoting previous messages or parts of messages (usually questions), but overall this technique was not used often by the Thai or American students. More common in this study was students beginning a message with an answer to a question without re-stating the question (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996). In fact, students often answered questions in different messages or continued to answer a question in multiple messages.
Participants in this study used two strategies not previously discussed in the literature in order to build or maintain relationships through virtual communication; these included directing partners to social networking sites for personal information and including internet links for non-project information. In an early message, Team Two’s
Som invited her American teammates to look at her social networking site in order to learn more about her. At the end of the project, she then posted pictures of the team in
Thailand (e.g., at the final presentation, working on the project, etc.). The pictures remained on the front page of her site at least ten months after project completion.
Students also posted links to information not related to project, for instance Jum’s link to a web site about a flora exposition. These techniques allowed students to quickly and easily share information important to them and to utilize the limitless resources available on the intranet.
A final potential contributor to the students’ feelings of community and relationships that has not been found in the literature was the fact that both groups of students had communities that they were a part of and then created new communities 257 virtually. This phenomenon is similar to Colomb and Simutis’s (1996) comment that their students’ placement in the computer lab could have lessened their feelings of anxiety with writing and thus affected their feelings for the class in general. It is possible that the students in this study felt more comfortable taking risks and developing relationships because of the larger communities they were a part of in their Ohio University Global
Leadership Center and the university English Department classes. More research into how course designers can use existing communities and relationships to facilitate the creation of new virtual learning communities and relationships would provide more insight into this area.
Students thus used a number of technology-based strategies to build relationships in their intercultural virtual learning community, in the process increasing their social and transactional presence.
Social Presence and Transactional Presence Theories
Social presence (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) is defined as “the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (p. 65). In other words, people can be perceived as more or less real, and this perception affects relationships. Participants in this study did need to feel social presence in order for relationships to develop. For example, Team Two student
Megan benefited from the Skype video conference, as it helped her become more interested in and form a relationship with the Thai students. This study also found that different students used different techniques to increase social presence. Some students used more emoticons (e.g., Jum, Eva, Milk, Amber), while others used none (e.g.,
Elizabeth, Koo, Amy, Neal). Many pictures were posted by some students (e.g., Megan 258 and Elizabeth), and only one picture was posted by others (e.g., Neal, Amy, Eva, Koo).
Differences also occurred with formality of discourse, with most students moving between formal and informal discourse and one student (Ping) being excessively informal with many emoticons and phonetic spellings. Some teams used their cell phones, while one did not but did use Skype for video conferences. Based on analysis of the discourse and on interviews, this study supports Riva et al.’s (2007) finding that feeling emotions contributes to feeling presence. Especially helpful in generating emotions were the Skype video conference, pictures, and phone calls.
Thus, all the participants did engage in at least some strategies to increase their social presence, but different teams and different communicators did so differently. Some students commented they did so purposefully (e.g., Megan) while others used strategies but did not comment on them specifically (e.g., Krista). Students building social presence in a variety of ways supports social information processing theory (Walther & Burgoon,
1992), which states that with sufficient time and sustained communication, users can overcome the difficulties posed by the medium of CMC and form relationships.
Transactional presence theory (Shin, 2002) was also supported in this study.
Experiencing high transactional presence means that users feel connected to other users who care about them. This idea is similar to the finding in this study that the participants showed consideration for each other as they formed relationships using technology. In order to demonstrate caring, the students used strategies that would be used in face-to- face situations (e.g., they showed interest in teammates or thanked them), yet they also engaged in behaviors that were necessary due to the potential dangers of virtual relationships (e.g., they responded to messages and did so quickly, they consistently gave 259 updates, they occasionally explained or asked about absences, they tried to communicate to maximize understanding, etc.).
This study supports the idea that technology can facilitate relationship building, as has been discussed by Suler (2004), Parks and Floyd (1996), and Walther (1996). Users can overcome potential obstacles in order to develop relationships virtually if they have the motivation to do so.
Limitations
Although this research does make a contribution to the literature about intercultural virtual learning communities, as with all studies, it does have limitations. In order to gain greater understanding, this study focused on 13 participants. While this number allowed for in-depth analysis, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to other contexts. Also, this study was not able to focus on the Thai students as much as on the Americans, meaning that Thai students’ experiences were not as fully explored.
Another limitation relates to the methodology of discourse analysis. Analyzing discourse provides insight into communicators’ feelings and experiences, but a piece of discourse can be understood in many ways. To minimize occurrences of misinterpreting a writer’s intention or a recipient’s understanding, the researcher supplemented the discourse analysis with interviews and observations and used a second rater for coding. However, there still may be cases of misunderstanding in this analysis. Finally, the interviews did add depth to this study, yet they would potentially have offered more insight if an additional round of interviews had occurred more closely after the students were in the course. In spite of the limitations, this study does offer a number of implications that can be used by instructors in online contexts. 260
Teaching Implications
The course in this study provided a trusting and constructivist environment for undergraduate students from the United States and Thailand to collaborate in teams on projects for Thai clients and in the process form relationships. As such, the course succeeded in its goal as stated in the syllabus of helping the American students understand “the historical, social, political, economic, religious, and cultural environment in which you and your [Thai] teammates are working and getting to know your Thai teammates and Thai Ajarns [professors].” This model worked well for the students, resulting in high course evaluations and a strong end result in terms of student’s grades and the quality of their final work. More than simply having students discuss cultural issues in a discussion board, this course required students to collaborate and build knowledge in order to present a final group project. It is a model that is recommended for use by other universities wishing to help their students develop deeper cultural understanding and relationships with people in different countries. Fancy or expensive software is not needed to implement this model; as Bikowski and Kessler (2002) point out, discussion boards are ideal for helping students construct meaning and reflect on their work. What is likely required is a group of strong and self-motivated students who are interested in developing long-distance intercultural relationships. In an endeavor to facilitate similar projects in other universities, the following teaching implications are recommended. It is understood that following these suggestions does not guarantee that students will exhibit all the characteristics of consideration noted above.
Many of these implications focus on the importance of planning carefully for the course. Instructors may want to (a) try to ensure that all students begin using the intranet 261 at approximately the same time, but if one group begins later, ensure that they feel welcome and that they read previous messages; (b) ensure that all students have equal representation in the intranet; (c) plan activities for the students to socialize and get to know each other; (d) build in events that trigger more excited communication or picture sharing among the students (e.g., a video or phone conference or assignments for holidays or cultural events); (e) build the course so that students have to respond to each other in a timely fashion; (f) if possible, consider exchanges instead of one-way projects; and (g) try to build projects that have a certain amount of complexity that requires negotiation and research but that are not overly complex so that students experience too much frustration.
Other teaching implications are related to preparing students for the project: (a) choose participants who will positively contribute to the project, meaning they are committed, interested in other cultures, understand the extra time and effort that will be required in the course, and have the language skills necessary to succeed; (b) determine what language needs the non-native speaking students will likely have in their CMC and train the native speaker teammates on strategies they can use to increase understanding by their nonnative language teammates; (c) train the native speaker teammates on how to recognize and respond to possible miscommunication; (d) train the native speaker teammates on handling possible discourse differences that might affect relationships or understanding; (e) encourage the native speakers to use some of their partners’ language;
(f) train the nonnative speakers on the benefits of asking questions and how to do so; (g) train all students on linguistic and non-linguistic strategies to convey consideration; and
(h) train all students on the technology needed for the course. 262
A final group of teaching implications is in regard to what instructors can do to help the students succeed during their projects. First of all, instructors can ensure that all students address all postings to their teammates, even if the posting is a required assignment. They can also use students’ interest in other cultures to motivate them to participate and build relationships. In addition, instructors can monitor student communication, looking for consideration indicators and intervening in the team if necessary. Consideration techniques to look for include picture sharing; sharing of non- project information; the use of personal names or more fun terms of address; descriptions of place or context; expressions of interest or excitement; expressions of praise, encouragement, or appreciation; or collaborative discourse indicating the communicator wants to work together. If many of these components are missing, it is possible that the team is not working together as well as it could and is not forming relationships. Also important to monitor are any possible misunderstandings or confusion. The instructor may want to step in and either discuss potential issues with individual team members or join in the team discussion and try to direct communication in the desired way. Since teams and individuals convey consideration in different ways, instructors should look at the overall context of the communication and not fixate on the presence or absence of individual techniques.
Recommendations for Future Research
Further research would benefit a number of areas uncovered in this study. For example, how students in virtual learning communities composed of students from a variety of countries use discourse to form relationships could be compared to the findings in this study. In addition, the role of consideration in other intercultural virtual learning 263 communities and how it is conveyed could be studied and discussed in light of these findings. The analysis of data collected through in-depth interviews or surveys would be an interesting complement to the data collected in this study.
More research would also shed light on just how different or similar students’ discourse is when students come from different cultures. Do the students create a
“discursive interculture,” as proposed by Koole and ten Thije (2001, p. 585)? Are young people becoming increasingly more similar regardless of their native culture as suggested by Yum and Hara (2005)? Do students demonstrate convergence in their discourse as they interact in learning communities? What are the types of modifications that non- native and native-English speaking students engage in as they try to maximize understanding? These questions would provide interesting insights as communicators from many cultures increasingly interact.
As students from different cultures communicated in this study, however, there were differences in their discourse. Research is needed into what factors may contribute to these differences. While one may be tempted to assume that cultural background is responsible for most discourse differences, in fact this study shows that other factors are possible, including course design, individual personalities, students’ projects, instructors, different roles within a team, students’ native language, and comfort with technology or experience with online courses. In particular, research is needed on if there is cultural bias against students from high-context cultures inherent in Western online course delivery systems, as has been suggested by Morse (2003), and if that bias might affect students’ discourse. 264
A fourth area of study could be how the amount and frequency of postings affect relationships formed in intercultural virtual learning communities. This study found that relationships were not adversely affected when a team member posted very few messages and no pictures. In fact, that team member was perceived as hard working. Perhaps more important than the number of postings is when messages are posted (e.g., after an event such as a video conference) or the type of posting (e.g., if the message includes humor).
The role of parallel community experiences in forming an online community could also be more fully investigated. This study included two separate communities that came together to form an online community. American students not studied in this project who did not work well together did not report high feelings of community in the course, indicating that the home-based communities contributed to students’ overall sense of community. Understanding how the home-based communities supported students is worthy of more study.
Another area that would benefit from further research is collaborative discourse and the role that it plays in helping students develop relationships in intercultural virtual learning communities. Using collaborative discourse, a student invites feedback and assures teammates that any feedback will be considered, signaling a strong desire to work together. This type of discourse has not been previously discussed in the literature, yet it may play a role in demonstrating true commitment to a team and team members.
Research could provide more understanding on how this type of discourse affects relationships formed in online environments and how it may differ depending on circumstances or team members. 265
How and why students include same-country teammates in their messages could be studied as well. Research could investigate if students compose these types of messages with all team members working together, if one student is signing a teammate’s name, or both. If in fact students are signing absent team members’ names, then questions that could be answered include under what conditions they do so and if they do so consistently throughout the project or only in certain project stages. The effect on the recipient of reading messages signed by one team member vs. two or more team members could also be studied.
Future research can also investigate how students communicating in a non-native language within a virtual learning community handle concepts that are difficult to communicate in the second language. Do they attempt to communicate those ideas, or simply avoid them? It would be interesting to understand how students communicating in an intercultural virtual learning community express concepts not easily translated into the language they are speaking; how that makes them feel as communicators; under which circumstances they use their native language word anyway, hoping that the recipient will understand it; or if a certain personality type is more likely to use native language words that are difficult to translate.
The rise of English online and issues of power are also worthy of much further study. Research could focus on if and to what degree non-native speakers feel they need to modify their English in order to be more similar to the native speakers’ communication, the reactions or feelings of non-native speakers when the English speaking students make little or no attempt to speak their language, the potential influences of the varieties of English likely used in CMC (Bucholtz, 2000), or if CMC 266 follows rules not found in either culture (Ma, 1996). Another interesting area for research would be comparing what modifications native English speakers think they need to do in order to make their English more accessible for their non-native teammates with what modifications the non-native speakers would find the most useful.
In addition to language and power issues, research could examine the role that team personality plays in the discourse a team produces and the relationships that are built. Topics such as if more outgoing teams produce more excited discourse and the effect that has on relationships could be investigated. What happens to team members who do not have the same type of personality as the team could also be examined. Are teams with similar types of personalities more likely to form relationships? Team personality is not an area often discussed in the literature.
Similar to team personalities, more research could be done on the role of gender in CMC in intercultural virtual learning communities. While this study revealed no differences in CMC based on gender, in fact there were too few males in the study to offer sufficient insight into this topic. Future studies could examine if discourse differs between males and females in general or between males and females according to cultural background. The role of student tasks and gender-based discourse differences or male-female ratio and differences in CMC could also be studied.
Another area of research would be the level of formality of the discourse produced by students in an intercultural virtual learning community. Both American and
Thai students in this community shifted between formal and informal discourse, sometimes apparently based on task but also on other factors. How formal to be in their course-related CMC seemed to be unclear to students, both Thai and American. Knowing 267 that teachers were reading their CMC may have affected their level of formality, as might have their concern to be understood by their international partners. More research would be needed to understand how level of formality in CMC might affect relationships in intercultural virtual learning communities.
Research could also focus on areas in which this study’s findings differed with other published work. For example, more research could examine the use of formal names in CMC, including what types of students use their formal names in intercultural
CMC, how often they do so, under what conditions, and if this has any effect on the message recipient. Another area would be when students post messages. Students may have a variety of reasons for when they post messages, not all of which are due to the relationships they make. For example, their course deadlines, holidays, course events
(e.g., video conference or phone call), or personal matters likely affect when they post messages. A third area deserving of more research is the role of minor mistakes in CMC.
It would be interesting to understand more about if students communicating with non- native speakers try to avoid spelling, capitalization, and formatting errors; how that is perceived by the non-native speaking students; and if certain types of students are more likely to allow spelling or formatting mistakes.
More research on the most effective means of communication between students in an intercultural virtual learning community is warranted as well. While it might seem that any medium that allows students to communicate beyond text would be preferable, in fact this study found that communication channels such as telephones were not always preferred when American students communicated with non-native English speakers.
Research could focus on how best to communicate with non-native language speakers so 268 that presence is increased and yet communication is relaxed and productive. The role that large time differences plays in the communication channel chosen could be studied as well, for example examining how time differences affect students’ use of synchronous forms of online communication.
Finally, research could focus on the strategies used by students that have not been documented in the literature, for example students directing their international partners to social networking sites. Nearly all students in this study communicated with their international partners using a social networking site (e.g., facebook). Some American students even encouraged their Thai partners to create facebook pages so that they could stay in contact. It would be interesting to know how being in a circle of friends such as facebook might affect long-term communication and also if other virtual friendships are made through that channel. Conversely, perhaps students in different social networking sites might communicate less frequently long-term. Another area not discussed in the literature is the effect of students referring their partners to internet links for non-project information. Data could be collected on how often students refer teammates to links for social or cultural purposes, what types of links they refer them to, if certain types of links are more effective, if the partner looks at the links, how receiving the links makes the partner feel, and if exchanging links can help students build virtual relationships.
Being that intercultural virtual learning communities have been little studied in the past, there are a variety of areas that would benefit from further research. Topics that that have emerged from this study that warrant further investigation revolve around how students convey consideration, similarities or differences in their discourse, how to best 269 meet the needs of non-native English speaking students in these environments, and how students can best use technology to build distance relationships.
Conclusion
This study reports on the analysis of discourse of 13 students from Thailand and the United States who worked together in a virtual learning community. Analysis found that the students’ discourse displayed high levels of consideration, with three main areas of consideration being interest in teammate and culture, support for teammates, and communicating with the teammates’ language in mind. The most commonly used techniques for conveying consideration were responding to messages, expressing a connection with teammates, offering assistance or information, and being thoughtful.
Different teams and different students conveyed consideration in a variety of ways. The important element to their discourse was not the specific strategies that they used, but rather that in general they demonstrated that they cared about their teammates. No participant in this study created perfectly considerate discourse. All students had missed opportunities and places they could have shown more consideration but did not, but these lapses did not affect the building of relationships.
This study contributes to the literature as it is the first to explore the discourse of university students who formed relationships in an intercultural virtual learning community. It also contributes to previous studies in identifying three techniques used for building virtual relationships that have not been discussed in previous literature: (a) the use of collaborative discourse, which is discourse that invites cooperation among the team, ensures that feedback will be considered, and demonstrates a strong desire to work together; (b) the inclusion of same-country teammates in messages as a means for teams 270 to express a feeling of connection to the whole group; and (c) the use of native-language words in course communication to express concepts that are difficult to communicate in the language of communication in the intranet (in this study, English).
This study also contributes to work on relationships, intercultural relationships, and intercultural virtual relationships, as it ties together research in these distinct areas.
This study found that the work of researchers in these fields (e.g., Brown & Levinson,
1987; Byram, 1997; Shin, 2002) can be viewed under the concept of consideration. This supports the idea that virtual relationships among young people are becoming increasingly similar to face-to-face relationships (Bonebrake, 2002). Future researchers may want to take Koole and ten Thije’s (2001) advice and research intercultural communication as ordinary communication, not as miscommunication. Particularly when students have advanced language proficiency, these learning contexts may not be so different from single-culture virtual learning communities.
A final contribution is that this study focused on American students in virtual learning contexts who are not language learners. Generally, studies involving participants from different cultures focus on language learners and their experiences (Belz, 2003;
Furstenberg et al., 2001; O’Dowd, 2003), but information is also needed on online learners not learning a language. In this context, it is helpful to know American students’ experiences, frustrations, and excitements, as American students will increasingly interact in English with nonnative English speakers from around the world. Understanding their experiences will better allow instructors to prepare students for these interactions.
In general, the Thai and American students’ discourse was more similar than different in ways they expressed consideration, perhaps reflecting a trend for young 271 people in different cultures to be increasingly similar (Yum & Hara, 2005). Possible reasons for discourse differences include students communicating in a nonnative language; course and project design; personality differences; different team roles; different instructors; students’ comfort with technology or experience with online courses; and gender.
A participation analysis indicated that students posted on average at least eight messages per week, included considerable social content in messages, and posted social pictures more often at key times such as holidays or after the video conference. In general the teams were similar in their participation rates.
Implications for teaching that can be drawn from this study center around careful course planning, student preparation, and monitoring by the instructor. Instructors have a crucial role to play, as in addition to planning a constructivist course, they should also carefully follow their students’ communication and ensure that students are demonstrating consideration in some capacity through their discourse, their creative use of technology, and their frequent and ongoing communication.
Many factors played a role in the communication between these students. Given all these forces and the communicative successes and relationships formed, this study supports Koole and ten Thije’s (2001) idea that intercultural communication is more than just “a collision of static cultural systems” (p. 583). Participants in this study did many things right and experienced intercultural successes. They overcame cultural, linguistic, and space barriers to form relationships, and they did so by expressing consideration in their computer-mediated communication.
272
References
Adger, C. T. (2001). Discourse in educational settings. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H.
E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 503-517). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Al-Bataineh, A., & Brooks, L. (2003). Challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of
instructional technology in the community college classroom [Electronic
resource]. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(6), 473-484.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1979). Social penetration theory: The development of
interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). (2004). Retrieved
October 10, 2007, from http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/V0116700.html
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for
interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 4(2). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from klaatu-
dev.pc.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/bitstream/2149/360/1/GettingtheMixRightAgai
n.pdf
Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi
(Eds.), Theory and practice in online learning. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from
Athabasca University, Canada’s Open University Web site:
http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist,
Eds.; V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 273
Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities:
Characterizing an online professional development community. In S. A. Barab, R.
Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of
learning (pp. 53-90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baron, N. S. (1984). Computer mediated communication as a force in language change.
Visible Language, 18(2), 118-141.
Baron, N. S. (1998a). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email
[Electronic version]. Language & Communication, 18, 133-170.
Baron, N. S. (1998b). Writing in the age of e-mail: The impact of ideology versus
technology. Visible Language, 32, 35-53.
Baym, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication.
In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and
community (pp. 138-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bell, C., & Newby, H. (1974). Introduction. In C. Bell & H. Newby (Eds.), The sociology
of community: A selection of readings (pp. xliiv-lii). London: Frank Cass.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural
competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-99.
Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/belz/default.html
Belz, J. A. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in Internet-mediated
language learning partnerships [Electronic version]. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 5(1), 3-39.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, C. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A
reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), 274
Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional
theory (pp. 269-292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bikowski, D. (2007). Internet relationships: Building learning communities through
friendship. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 131-141. Retrieved
August 15, 2007, from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/showissue.cfm?volID=6&IssueID=20
Bikowski, D., & Kessler, G. (2002). Making the most of discussion boards in the ESL
classroom. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 27-30.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Group.
Bonebrake, K. (2002). College students’ internet use, relationship formation, and
personality correlates [Electronic version]. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(6),
551-557.
Booth, S., & Hulten, M. (2003). Opening dimensions of variation: An empirical study of
learning in a Web-based discussion [Electronic version]. Instructional Science,
31, 65-86.
Bretag, T. (2006). Developing ‘third space’ interculturality using computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 5.
Retrieved February 1, 2007, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/bretag.html
Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2), 18-35. Retrieved April 7, 2006,
from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_brown.asp 275
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Buchanan, E. (2000). Going the extra mile: Serving distance education students. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3. Retrieved April 19, 2005, from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/buchanan31.html
Bucholtz, M. (2000). Language and youth culture [Electronic version]. American Speech,
75(3), 280-283
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic routine
interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Candlin, C. N. (1997). General editor’s preface. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linnell, & B.
Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (p. x-xiv). London:
Longman.
Cappella, J. N. (1988). Personal relationships, social relationships and patterns of
interaction. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory,
research and interventions (pp. 325-342). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Carter, D. (2005). Living in virtual communities: An ethnography of human relationships
in cyberspace [Electronic version]. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2),
148-167. 276
Cassell, J., & Tversky, D. (2005). The language of online intercultural community
formation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 2.
Retrieved October 4, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/cassell.html
Cheaney, J., & Ingebritsen, T. S. (2005). Problem-based learning in an online course: A
case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
6(3). Retrieved February 1, 2007, from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/267
Chen, G. M. (1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus
Chinese: A comparative study [Electronic version]. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 26, 84-91.
Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications.
Clark, M.S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal
relationships [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37(1), 12-24.
Cole, M. (2002). Virtual communities for learning and development—A look to the past
and some glimpses into the future. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.),
Building virtual communities (pp. xxi-xxix). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1978). Introduction. In M. Cole & S. Scribner (Eds.), Mind in
society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 1-14).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 277
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In S.
C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and
cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Colomb, G. C., & Simutis, J. A. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry:
CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-
mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.
203-224). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal
of Asynchronous Online Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34. Retrieved April 14,
2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v5n1/v5n1_curtis.asp
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated
communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO
Journal, 19, 249-277.
Dede, C. (1996a). Distance learning: Making the transformation [Electronic version].
Learning and Leading with Technology, 23, 25-30.
Dede, C. (1996b). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and
distributed learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10, 4-36. 278
Dede, C. (2004, Sept.). Enabling distributed learning communities via emerging
technologies—part one. T.H.E. Journal, 32(2). Retrieved May 20, 2005, from
http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A4963.cfm
Denscombe, M. (2002). Ground rules for good research: A ten point guide for social
researchers. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon:
Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups
[Electronic version]. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
Duck, S., & Sants, H. (1983). On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships
really interpersonal states? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 27-
41.
Duemer, L., Fontenot, D., Gumfory, K., Kallus, M. Larsen, J., Schafer, S., et al. (2002).
The use of online synchronous discussion groups to enhance community
formation and professional identity development. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 1(2). Retrieved May 10, 2006, from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/showissue.cfm?volID=1&IssueID=3
Durham, M. (2003). Language choice on a Swiss mailing list. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 9(1). Retrieved September 25, 2007, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue1/durham.html
Ess, C., & Sudweeks, F. (2005). Culture and computer-mediated communication: Toward
new understandings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1),
article 9. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/ess.html 279
Faiola, A., & Matei, S. A. (2005). Cultural cognitive style and web design: Beyond a
behavioral inquiry into computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 11(1), article 18. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/faiola.html
Fairclough, N. (1992). Introduction. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness
(pp. 1-30). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: A critical study of language. London:
Longman.
Fengfeng, K. (2006). Individual differences in sense of classroom community. Paper
presented at the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences, Bloomington,
Indiana, 948-949. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1150034.1150193
Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and
culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in
distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the
silent language of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning and
Technology, 5(1), 55-102. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html
Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Network, 10(1), 25-34. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/v10n1_3garrison.asp 280
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future
directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended
learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Greene, C. (2005). Creating connections: A pilot study on an online community of
learners. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(3), article 3. Retrieved
October 24, 2006, from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/showissue.cfm?volID=3&IssueID=12
Grimes, W. (1992, Dec. 1). Computer as a cultural tool: Chatter mounts on every topic
[Electronic version]. The New York Times, Section c, p. 13, column 4.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2003). Foreward. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-cultural and
intercultural communication (pp. vii-ix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., Sudweeks, S., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T. (1991).
Themes in opposite-sex, Japanese-North American relationships. In S. Ting-
Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp.
230-258). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Lee, C. M., Nishida, T., & Ogawa, N. (2005). Theorizing about
intercultural communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about
intercultural communication (pp. 3-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunawardena, C. H. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and
collaborative learning in computer conferences [Electronic version]. International
Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166. 281
Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction
within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 11, 8-26.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hancock, J. T., Landrigan, C., & Silver, C. (2007). Expressing emotion in text-based
communication. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI 2007) Conference, San Jose, California.
Harré, R. (2001). The discursive turn in social psychology. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, &
H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 688-706).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships:
Theory, research and interventions (pp. 391-408). Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons.
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robbins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community
development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved May 22, 2006,
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html
Herring, S. C. (1996). Introduction. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated
communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 1-12).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E.
Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Malden, MA:
Blackwell. 282
Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to
researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.),
Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338-376). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Hewling, A. (2005). Culture in the online class: Using message analysis to look beyond
nationality-based frames of reference. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(1), article 16. Retrieved February 13, 2007,
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/hewling.html
Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research
[Electronic version]. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 431-438.
Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education
researchers [Electronic version]. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior
in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome
expectations [Electronic version]. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 65, 153-169.
Jaffee, D. (1997). Synchronous learning: Technology and pedagogical strategy in a
distance learning course [Electronic version]. Teaching Sociology, 25, 262-27. 283
James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance
learning. In M. H. Rossman & M. E. Rossman (Eds.), Facilitating distance
education (pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jandt, F. E. (2004). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global
community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2006). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In
A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Jones, S. G. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. In S. G. Jones
(Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 10-
35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning
communities: The impact of moderation strategies [Electronic version].
Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 73-80.
Kim, H. J. (1991). Influence of language and similarity on initial intercultural attraction.
In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal
communication (pp. 213-229). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Komin, S. (1990). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral patterns.
Bangkok, Thailand: Research Center National Institute of Development
Administration.
Koole, T., & ten Thije, J. D. (2001). The reconstruction of intercultural discourse:
Methodological considerations [Electronic version]. Journal of Pragmatics, 33,
571-587. 284
Korenman, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996). Group dynamics in an email forum. In S. C. Herring
(Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural
perspectives (pp. 225-242). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lally, V., & Barrett, E. (1999). Building a learning community on-line: Towards a socio-
academic interaction [Electronic version]. Research Papers in Education, 14(2),
147-163.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2(3-4), 321-341.
Lee, H. O., & Boster, F. J. (1991). In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-
cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 189-212). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lemke, J. L. (1993). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education,
4, 257-268.
Levin, B. B., He, Y., & Robbins, H. H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice
teachers’ reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case
discussions [Electronic version]. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
14(3), 439-460.
Li, H. Z. (1999). Grounding and information communication in intercultural and
intracultural dyadic discourse [Electronic version]. Discourse Processes, 28(3),
195-215.
Li, S., & Liu, D. (2005). The Online Top-Down Modeling Model [Electronic version].
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 343-359.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 285
Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (1999). Cognitive styles and distance education. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved September 19, 2006, from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/liu23.html
Logan, K., & Thomas, P. (2002, June). Learning styles in distance education students
learning to program. Paper presented at the 14th Workshop of the Psychology of
Programming Interest Group, Brunel University. 29-44. Retrieved January 15,
2007, from http://www.ppig.org/workshops/14th-programme.html
Ludwig-Hardman, S. (2003). Case study: Instructional design strategies that contribute to
the development of online learning community (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Colorado, 2003). ProQuest, 64(12), 4315.
Ma, R. (1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural
communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S.
C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and
cross-Cultural perspectives (pp. 173-186). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ma, G. (2006). Online learning community in the context of distance education: A case
study (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2006). ProQuest, 67(12).
Mallon, R., & Oppenheim, C. (2002). Style used in electronic mail [Electronic version].
Aslib Proceedings, 54(1), 8-22.
McAdams, D. P. (1988). Personal needs and personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 7-
22). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 286
McCown, J. A., Fischer, D., Page, R., & Homant, M. (2001). Internet relationships:
People who meet people [Electronic version]. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(5),
593-596.
McMillan, D.W. (1996). Sense of community [Electronic version]. Journal of
Community Psychology, 24(4), 315-325.
Meagher, M. E., & Castaños, F. (1996). Perceptions of American culture: The impact of
an electronically mediated cultural exchange program of Mexican high school
students. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic,
social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 187-202). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary. (2006). Retrieved November 9, 2007, from http://m-
w.com/dictionary/thoughtful
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction [Electronic version]. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Meskill, C. (1999). Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. In K.
Cameron (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL): Media, design
and applications (pp. 141-164). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 287
Moore, M. G. (1991). Distance education theory. DEOSNEWS 1(25). Retrieved February
15, 2007, from http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews1_25.asp
Morse, K. (2003). Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a
multicultural environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 37-
55. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from http://www.sloan-
c.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/v7n1_morse.asp
Niederhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social
interaction [Electronic version]. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21,
337-360.
Oberlander, J., & Gill, A. J. (2006). Language with character: A stratified corpus
comparison of individual differences in e-mail communication [Electronic
version]. Discourse Processes, 42, 239-270.
O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-
English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144.
Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/odowd/
Opp-Beckman, L., & Kieffer, C. (2004). A collaborative model for online instruction in
the teaching of language and culture. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New
perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 225-252). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.) (1989). Retrieved October 10, 2007, from
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50074152?single=1&query_type=word&quer
yword=empathy&first=1&max_to_show=10 288
Ohnesorge, D. (2001, December). Cross-cultural-management: Barriers to Austro-Thai
business relationships—A qualitative research. Paper presented at the Eighth
Cross-Cultural Research Conference, Kahuku, Oahu, Hawaii. Retrieved March
28, 2007, from
marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/ccrs/proceedings01/papers/Ohnesorge.doc
Panyametheekul, S., & Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and turn allocation in a Thai chat
room. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9(1). Retrieved December
28, 2004, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue1/panya_herring.html
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace:
Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Park, K. A., & Waters, E. (1988). Traits and relationships in developmental perspective.
In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and
interventions (pp. 161-176). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 1(4), article 5. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/parks.html
Parks, M. R., & Roberts, L. (1998). ‘Making MOOsic’: The development of personal
relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts [Electronic
version]. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(4), 517-537.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. 289
Paulus, T., & Roberts, G. (2006). Learning through dialogue: Online case studies in
educational psychology [Electronic version]. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 14, 731-754.
Pea, R. (2004). Foreward. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for
virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. xiii-xv). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Pelz, B. (2004). (My) three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), 33-46. Retrieved February 25, 2997,
from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n3/v8n3_pelz.asp
Perakyla, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occurring
social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method
and practice (pp. 283-304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Popping, T. (2000). Computer-assisted text analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ponti, M., & Ryberg, T. (2004). Rethinking virtual space as a place for sociability:
Theory and design implications. Paper presented at the Networked Learning
Conference, England. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from
http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/sympo
sia/symposium13/ponti_ryberg.htm
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of analyzing naturally occurring talk. In D.
Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 200-
221). London: Sage.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability.
Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. 290
Prpic, J. K., & Kanjanapanyakom, R. (2004, July). The impact of cultural values and
norms on higher education in Thailand. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Sarawak,
Malaysia. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from
www.herdsa.org.au/conference2004/Contributions/NRPapers/P064-jt.pdf
Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at
The Math Forum. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual
communities (pp. 60-95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rheingold, H. (1987, Winter). Virtual communities. Whole Earth Review, 78-80.
Rheingold, H. (1998). The virtual community. Retrieved February 3, 2005, from
http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/intro.html
Rice, R. E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In R. E. Rice & Associates (Eds.),
The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 129-156).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in
relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C. S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D., et al.
(2007). Affective interactions using virtual reality: The link between presence and
emotions [Electronic version]. CyperPsychology & Behavior, 10(7), 45-56. 291
Roberts, A. (2004). Analyzing patterns and relationships around a bond of common text:
Purposes, dilemmas, and possibilities of a virtual community [Electronic version].
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 1-27.
Roberts, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication patterns in online learning
environments (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, 2004).
ProQuest, 65(4), 1287.
Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Rogers, S. (2006). Analysis of the academic discourse community constructed in a
computer-mediated asynchronous learning environment (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Rochester, 2006). ProQuest, 67(4).
Rollins, S., & Almeroth, K. (2004). Lessons learned deploying a digital classroom
[Electronic version]. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(2), 169-185.
Rovai, A. P. (2002a). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education
classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(1), 41-56. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_rovai.asp
Rovai, A. P. (2002b). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community
[Electronic version]. Internet and Higher Education 5, 197-211.
Rovai, A.P., & Lucking, R. (2003). Sense of community in a higher education television-
based distance education program. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 51(2), 5-16. 292
Rushton, S., & Larkin, E. (2001). Shaping the learning environment: Connecting
developmentally appropriate practices to brain research [Electronic version].
Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1), 25-33.
Ryan, R. (2000, January). Student assessment comparison of lecture and online
construction equipment and methods classes. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved February
1, 2007, from http://thejournal.com/articles/14550_1
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995, September-October). Problem based learning: An
instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, pp.
31-38.
Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35-44.
Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.sloan-
c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/v10n1_4shea.asp
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). Introduction. In D. Schiffrin, D.
Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 1-10).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Shapiro, N. Z., & Anderson, R. H. (1985). Toward an ethics and etiquette for electronic
mail. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Shawyun, T., & Tanchaisak, K. (2006, September). Core values of Thai undergraduates
revisited in 2005: A case study of Assumption University. Paper presented at the
Southeast Asian Association for Institutional Research (SEAAIR) Conference,
Langkawi, Malaysia. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from
www.qa.au.edu/page2/ValuesResearchAuUndergrad_revised.pdf 293
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of “transactional presence”
[Electronic version]. Open Learning, 17(2), 121-137.
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance
learning [Electronic version]. Distance Education, 24(1), 69-86.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Shumar, W., & Renninger, K. A. (2002). Introduction: On conceptualizing community.
In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities (pp. 1-17).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sirisonthi, T. (2004). A cognitive complexity as a factor to
understanding/misunderstanding in e-mail communication. Bangkok University
Academic Review, 3(1). Retrieved April 15, 2007, from
http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2004/
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated
communication [Electronic version]. System 31, 29–53.
South, S. (2006). Contributing factors to engagement in online learning environments:
The relationship between sense of community and participation (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Arizona, 2006). ProQuest, 67(1).
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Xing, J. (2003). Managing rapport in intercultural business
interactions: A comparison of two Chinese-British welcome meetings [Electronic
version]. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 33-46.
Stacey, M. (1974). The myth of community studies. In C. Bell & H. Newby (Eds.), The
sociology of community: A selection of readings (pp. 13-26). London: Frank Cass. 294
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The importance of interaction
in web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses.
Journal of Online Interactive Learning, 4(1), 1-19. Retrieved March 1, 2007,
from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/4.1.1.pdf
Suler, J. (2004). The psychology of text relationships. In R. Kraus, J. S. Zach, & G.
Stricker (Eds.), Online counseling: A handbook for mental health professionals
(pp. 19-50). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Suler, J. (2007). Second Life, second chance. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from Rider
University Web site: http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/secondlife.html
Sullivan, P. (2001). Gender differences and the online classroom: Male and female
college students evaluate their experiences [Electronic version]. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 805-818.
Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Odell, M. R., & Sundberg, C. A. (2003). Research-supported
best practices for developing online learning. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 2(1). Retrieved June 26, 2006, from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/2.1.1.pdf
Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments.
Retrieved February 15, 2007, from The Sloan Consortium Web site:
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf 295
Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne
& J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging
communities (pp. 13-30). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated
communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case
study [Electronic version]. Computers and Education, 34, 119-140.
Toolan, M. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Tu, C. H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. The Journal
of Interactive Online Learning 1(2). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/showissue.cfm?volID=1&IssueID=3
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in
online classes [Electronic version]. The American Journal of Distance Education,
16(3), 131-150.
United States Distance Learning Association. (n. d.). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from
the USDLA Web site: http://www.usdla.org/
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships
in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1). Retrieved February 19, 2007,
from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1982). An interpretation of Piaget’s constructivism. Retrieved
March 13, 2007, from Ernst von Glasersfeld’s Web site:
http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/ 296
Vongvipanond, P. (2005). Linguistic perspectives of Thai culture. Retrieved March 30,
2007, from the Thai Language Audio Resource Center Web site:
http://thaiarc.tu.ac.th/thai/peansiri.htm
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction [Electronic version]. Communication Research,
23(1), 3-43.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated
interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Ware, P. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a
German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2).
Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/ware/default.html
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second
language classroom [Electronic version]. CALICO Journal, 13(2-3), 7-26.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying
action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In S. C.
Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-
cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yum, Y. O., & Hara, K. (2005). Computer-mediated relationship development: A cross-
cultural comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 297 article 7. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/yum.htm
298
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONALIZING RELATIONSHIP BUILDING
The following table provides detail on the relationship building in a community concept, drawing characteristics mainly from the work of Herring (2004), Brown and
Levinson (1987), Altman and Taylor (1973), Parks and Floyd (1996), and Toolan (2001).
Operationalizing the Concept of Relationship building in a Community Characteristics of Discourse features expressing the characteristics relationships and community Participation (Herring, Total number of messages posted: 2004) • calculate the number of total messages posted in each team • calculate the number of total messages posted by each team member • break down by cultural background • a large number of messages exchanged indicates closer relationship (Moore, 1991; Korenman & Wyatt 1996; Paulus & Roberts, 2006; Ware, 2005)
Interactivity analysis: • compare the number of initial postings with the number of responses • break down by cultural background
Relationship analysis: • note the number of messages posted that are purely social, compared to total number posted • break down by cultural background
Analyze pacing: • CMC message exchange pacing; changes are often visible in the frequency, spontaneity, and rhythm of postings (Suler, 2004)
Claim common ground: Convey other is interesting or noticed—language to the group shares goals, indicate that the communicator notices or is thinking values, wants, etc. about the other (Brown & Levinson, 1987): (Brown & Levinson 1987) Interest (Brown & Levinson, 1987): • face-to-face this is usually done with intonation (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • Convey other is • use of the “vivid present” (Brown & Levinson, 1987) interesting • use of tag questions (Brown & Levinson, 1987) 299
• asking questions (Cassell & Tversky, 2005; Ware, 2005) • following up on topics initiated by partner (Ware, 2005); acknowledge input (Cassell & Tversky, 2005); responding to and elaborating upon questions (Ware, 2005) • giving or inviting feedback (Cassell & Tversky, 2005)
Noticing partner and attending to their needs (Brown and Levinson, 1987 in Bretag, 2006): • words like “hope,” “sounds like,” “I can see” (Brown and Levinson, 1987 in Bretag, 2006) • words like “I haven’t heard anything from you, so I hope you and yours are all o.k.” (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 127)
Exaggeration (Brown and Levinson, 1987): • words like “wonderful,” “absolutely,” Fantastic,” “beautiful,” “great,” “really,” and “so” and punctuation (e.g., !) (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • text that is more expressive in thoughts, emotions, words and composition (Baym, 1995; Suler, 2004)
Respect and affection (Canary & Stafford, 1994)
Supportive (Paulus & Roberts, 2006)/encouragement (Roberts, R., 2004): • words like “well done,” “congratulations,” “excellent,” “love,” “I am proud of you” (Bretag, 2006; Cassell & Tversky, 2005), “you’re the best,” and “great job!” as praise (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 123) • words like “give us some inspiration” or “don’t stress yourself” (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 122)
Claim common ground Claim in-group membership (Brown & Levinson, 1987): (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • use of in-group terms of address (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • Claim in-group • use of nicknames (Brown & Levinson, 1987) membership • use of jargon or slang (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • use of ellipsis (part of sentence is implied but not stated) (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • more “we”s than “I”s (Cassell & Tversky, 2005; Herring, 2004) 300
• words like “know,” “As you know,” “We know,” and “like-minded” (Bretag, 2006) • informal punctuation (e.g., …) (Bretag, 2006) • conversational tone convergence (Ware, 2005) • CMC routines, which are often-repeated phrases such as openings/closings (Cherny, 1999) • sense of membership (Cherny, 1999) • sense of cohesion (Rovai, 2002a) such as “It’s been helpful communicating so much…,” “I look forward to seeing you both this week, and working with you on the project,” or “I am very pleased with how well we as a group…” (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 125) • participatory verbs (e.g., identifying, naming, referring to, acknowledging, asking, or requesting) help build group cohesion (Booth & Hulten, 2003; Ware, 2005) • “us” vs. “them” language (Herring, 2004) • language that indicates that members feel an emotional connection to the group or consideration for other members (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996) • messages indicating person is thinking of group, explaining absence such as “I’m back” or “Checking in” (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 126)
Claim common ground Claim common perspectives (Brown & Levinson, 1987); (Brown & Levinson, shared culture (Herring, 2004); support (Cassell & 1987) Tversky, 2005; Herring, 2004):
• Claim common Seek agreement (Brown & Levinson, 1987): perspectives • raising safe topics (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • words like “agree,” “yes,” “as you know” (Bretag, 2006; Cassell & Tversky, 2005) • hedging and avoiding white lies to avoid disagreement (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • words like “apologize,” “but,” “maybe,” and “however” (Bretag, 2006; Cassell & Tversky, 2005)
Indicate partner is heard (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • repeating partner’s language (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
Assert common ground (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • small talk/gossip (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • communicating from partner’s point of view (Brown & Levinson, 1987) 301
• talk of family or studies (Bretag, 2006) • joking as showing common perspective (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Cassell & Tversky, 2005) • jokes, funny stories, general playfulness as humor (Bretag, 2006); own jokes or jargon (Cherny, 1999) • language creativity (Cherny, 1999) • story-telling (Cherny, 1999) • language indicating norms (Baym, 1995)
Presuppose that both partners have same value system (Brown & Levinson, 1987): • using adjectives (e.g., “tall” or “big”) (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
Presuppose relationship (Brown & Levinson, 1987): • using questions that presuppose partner’s wants/preferences (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • using familiar terms of address (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • using personal forms of address (Ware, 2005) • using the members’ names frequently (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996; Ware, 2005) • the frequent use of “you” (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996)
Convey cooperation Claim reflexivity, that the communicator wants what is (Brown & Levinson, best for their partner: 1987) • Concern: language that demonstrates concern for • claim reflexivity partner (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • claim reciprocity • Promises or offers: words like “I’d be happy to,” “I will do my best” (Bretag, 2006) • Optimism: words like “happy,” “glad,” “enjoy,” and “will” (Bretag, 2006) • Inclusion: words like “we,” “let’s,” or “class” (Bretag, 2006) • Explanations: giving reasons for something (e.g., to justify an opinion or to explain or apologize for lateness) (Bretag, 2006; Roberts, R., 2004)
Claim reciprocity:
• words such as “thanks” or “thank you” (Bretag, 2006; Cassell & Tversky, 2005) • analysis of turn initiation and response (Herring, 2004) 302
• agreements of I’ll do this if you do that (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
Fulfill other’s wants Give gifts: (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • making partner feel liked, admired, understood, listened to, etc. (Brown & Levinson, 1987) • give gifts • sympathy (Brown & Levinson, 1987); sympathizing with other (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Cassell & Tversky, 2005) • invitations (Bretag, 2006) • photo attachments (Bretag, 2006) • blessings and good wishes (Bretag, 2006) • language to show that communicator likes partner (Canary & Stafford, 1994)
Intimacy (Bretag, 2006; Intimacy deepens as relationship progresses (Parks & Altman & Taylor, 1973) Floyd, 1996): • breadth of self- disclosure Breadth: • depth of self • discussing more topics (Parks & Floyd, 1996) disclosure • discussing “off-task” topics (O’Dowd, 2003, p. 128) or topics about personal events or frustrations/feelings (Roberts, R., 2004) • using more communication channels (Parks & Floyd, 1996)
Depth: • revealing more personal/important information (Gudykunst, Gao, Sudweeks, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1991; Parks & Floyd, 1996); the exchange of personal information and personalized messages (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996); more social discourse (Paulus & Roberts, 2006) • words such as “feel,” “experience,” “think,” and “believe” as revealing information indicating emotional/mental state, problems, weaknesses, concerns, indicating trust (Bretag, 2006) • language that indicates risk-taking or that shows partner is honest/dependable as exhibiting trust (Canary & Stafford, 1994) • expressing true opinion (not hedging or white lying) (Parks & Floyd, 1996) • telling partner likes and dislikes about him/her (Parks & Floyd, 1996) 303
• using forms of address that are more personal (Ware, 2005) • increased knowledge sharing behavior indicates trust where partners feel emotional connection, genuine concern, and shared goals, values (Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007)
Commitment (Parks and Stating the relationship is important (Parks & Floyd, Floyd, 1996) 1996):
• displaying effort to maintain the relationship • voicing expectations that the relationship will continue • dealing with conflict (Herring, 2004), disappointment, disagreement, or anger non- threateningly (Cassell & Tversky, 2005)
Interdependence Depending on, affecting, and influencing each other (Canary & Stafford, (Parks & Floyd, 1996): 1994; Parks and Floyd, 1996) Interactive/interpersonal messages (Cassell & Tversky, 2005)
Shared work (Parks & Floyd, 1996): • volunteering (Cassell & Tversky, 2005) • delegating work (Cassell & Tversky, 2005) • suggestions for action (Cassell & Tversky, 2005) • sharing tasks, activities (Parks & Floyd, 1996)
Intensification or Intensification (the absence of hedging) (Belz, 2003): mitigation • words like “you are right,” stating that something is or is not true, stating something as an absolute fact, directly stating preferences, or using an adjective to directly describe someone or something (e.g., “that idea is narrow-minded” as categorical assertions (Belz, 2003) • words like “definitely,” “really,” “still,” “do,” “certainly,” as intensifiers (Belz, 2003) • words like “every,” “both,” “no,” “all,” “no matter what,” and “any” as lexical absolutes (Belz, 2003)
Mitigation (Belz, 2003; Brown & Levinson, 1987): • hedging adverbial clauses such as “if you don’t mind” (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 133) • hedging tag phrases such as “I think” or “it seems” 304
(Roberts, R., 2004, p. 133) • hedging words like “just,” “a little,” or “a few” to weaken imposition (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 133) • words like “maybe,” “perhaps,” “anyway,” “well,” “but,” “not too much,” or “whatever” (Belz, 2003; Cassell & Tversky, 2005; Roberts, R., 2004, p. 133) • humor to soften potentially face-threatening act (Roberts, R., 2004) • words such as “please” to soften requests (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 132)
305
APPENDIX B: OPERATIONALIZING INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING
The following table provides detail on the intercultural understanding concept, mainly drawing characteristics from the work of Byram (1997) and Belz (2003).
Operationalizing the Concept of Intercultural Understanding Characteristics of Discourse features expressing the characteristics intercultural understanding Open and curious Open and curious attitude about communicating with attitude, suspending intercultural other (Byram, 1997) beliefs and judgments, being reflective (Byram, New point of view: 1997, p. 34) • language indicating a shift in perspective (Byram, • Interact with the 1997) other in a • telling partners stories, theories and assumptions relationship of about other culture showing development of new equality ideas (O’Dowd, 2003) • a genuine interest in the other's point of Interact with the other in a relationship of equality view (Byram, 1997): • Culturally • language indicated interest in daily routines/life, not appropriate what’s normally presented through the media about communication the culture (Byram, 1997) • communicating outside of class time or beyond requirements (Belz, 2003; O’Dowd, 2003) • language that indicates communicator is willing to interact with partner (Belz, 2003) • language indicating value of work vs. devaluing work (Belz, 2003)
A genuine interest in the other’s point of view (Byram, 1997): • language indicating communicator doesn’t place own cultural views above other culture’s views (Byram, 1997) • frequent communication (Belz, 2003) • detailed personal information (Belz, 2003) • words like “curious” (Belz, 2003) • language demonstrating an interest in the partner’s representation of his/her culture (O’Dowd, 2003)
Culturally appropriate communication (Byram, 1997)
Skill of interpreting Mediating between conflicting interpretations (Byram, 306
(Byram, 1997) 1997):
• explaining from other’s perspective to increase understanding (Byram, 1997), for example, knowing to explain a home culture so that a partner can understand • identifying common ground (Byram, 1997), such as similarities in attitude and interest (Gudykunst, Gao, Sudweeks, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1991) • comparing or explaining cultures, feelings, symbolism, and personal stories in a way that is more than just facts; for example, “I want you to know the truth” (O’Dowd, 2003, p. 131)
Skill of discovery Acquiring and acting on new knowledge about a culture (Byram, 1997, p. 39) (Byram, 1997):
• asking deep questions that elicit concepts and/or values to compare generalizations (Byram, 1997) • identify shared values (Byram, 1997)
Skill of cultural Evaluate perspectives, practices, or products (Byram, awareness (Byram, 1997): 1997) • identifying values and interpreting them (Byram, 1997) • interacting and negotiating interculturally (Byram, 1997) • language that exhibits sensitivity to directness and politeness for other culture (Byram, 1997; O’Dowd, 2003) • knowing about partner’s culture (Gudykunst, Gao, Sudweeks, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1991) • knowing about own culture and how it is viewed by other cultures (O’Dowd, 2003); imagining the world as seen through someone’s eyes from a different culture
307
APPENDIX C: OPERATIONALIZING RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN A
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT
The following table provides detail on the virtual relationships concept, mainly drawing characteristics from the discussions of social presence (Short, Williams, &
Christie, 1976) and transactional presence (Shin, 2003) above.
Operationalizing the Concept of Relationship building in a Virtual Environment Relationship-forming virtually Expand potential for social network convergence (Parks & Floyd, 1996) relationship • partners have introduced each other to other virtual maintenance social networks (Parks & Floyd, 1996) • partners introduced to non-virtual social circles (Parks & Floyd, 1996)
talk about the future (Cassell & Tversky)
Convey personhood Use of means to increase idea that users are people because of reduced (Baym, 1995; Cassell & Tversky, 2005; Suler, 2004): nonverbal cues—Social Presence Theory (Short, Personalized communication: Williams, and Christie, • expressing emotion through parenthetical expressions 1976) (e.g., sigh), voice accentuation (e.g., *ASTERISKS*), trailers (e.g., …) (Suler, 2004), and exclamation points (Roberts, R., 2004; Suler, 2004), emoticons, paralanguage (e.g., use of different colors or font sizes) (Tu, 2002); “ha, ha, ha,” emoticons (Bretag, 2006) • use features associated with oral discourse (e.g., “And another thing”) (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996) • allowing small spelling or formatting mistakes in messages (Suler, 2004); very informal language (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996)
Setting descriptors: • describe place (Roberts, A., 2004) • share photos (Suler, 2004)
Expand communication types (Suler, 2004): • voice contact (Suler, 2004) • face-to-face contact • video contact 308
Fast response time: • appropriate response time, defined by participants (Tu, 2002)
Demonstrate Connectedness (Rovai, 2002a): connectedness and • messages begin with an answer to a question without caring—Transactional re-stating the question (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996) Presence Theory (Shin, • linking a new message to the previous one or quoting 2003) a piece of previous communication to demonstrate listening (Herring, 2001)
Caring: • shorter messages indicate that the communicator is trying to meet partner’s reading needs (Tu, 2002) • lack of flaming or outbursts (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996) • convey interest that would normally be displayed nonlinguistically (e.g., asterisks, bold letters, etc.), based on Brown and Levinson (1987)
Encourage timely Requests for maintaining contact communication words such as “Please respond so we are all in (Roberts, R., 2004) understanding” or “let us know if that sounds good” (Roberts, R., 2004, p. 127)
309
APPENDIX D: CLASSROOM COMMUNITY SCALE
Directions: Below, you will see a series of statements concerning the International Cooperative Consulting Project you participated in with students from Thailand. Read each statement carefully and circle the response to the right of the statement that comes closest to indicate how you felt about the project. There are no correct or incorrect responses. If you neither agree nor disagree with a statement or are uncertain, circle the neutral (N) area. Do not spend too much time on any one statement, but give the response that seems to describe how you feel. Please respond to all items.
Strongly agree (SA) Agree (A) Neutral (N) Disagree (D) Strongly disagree (SD)
1. I felt that all students on my team cared about each other (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 2. I felt that I was encouraged to ask questions (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 3. I felt that I was connected to others in this course (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 4. I felt that it was hard to get help when I had a question (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 5. I did not feel a spirit of community (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 6. I felt that I received timely feedback (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 7. I felt that this course was like a family (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 8. I felt uneasy exposing gaps in my understanding (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 9. I felt isolated in this course (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 10. I felt reluctant to speak openly (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 11. I trusted others in this course (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 12. I felt that this course resulted in only modest learning (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 13. I felt that I could rely on others in this course (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 14. I felt that other students did not help me learn (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 15. I felt that members of this course depended on me (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 16. I felt that I was given ample opportunities to learn (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 17. I felt uncertain about others in this course (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 18. I felt that my educational needs were not being met (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 19. I felt confident that others supported me (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD) 20. I felt that this course did not promote a desire to learn (SA) (A) (N) (D) (SD)
Comments on anything about this project: 310
APPENDIX E: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BOARD APPROVAL
311
Ohio University Institutional Review Board Project Amendment/Revision Form
Federal regulations require IRB approval prior to implementing proposed changes to research projects. Such changes include any change to the originally approved proposal, including, but not limited to changes in number of participants, changes in recruitment/research procedures, and changes in supporting documents (consent form, debriefing form, questionnaires, advertisements, etc.)
Please complete this form, and attach all revised documents or supporting information.
Proposal #: 05E110 Date: October 10, 2006
Proposal Title: Applying Activity Theory Task Analysis to a Higher Education Virtual Learning Community
Principal Investigator Information
Name Dawn Bikowski Department OPIE/Global Leadership Center (used to be Global Learning Community)
Address Gordy Hall 155, Athens campus (If off-campus, include city, state and zip code)
Email [email protected] Phone 593-0201
Study Status
Active (currently in progress) X Project not yet started (no participants enrolled) Closed to new participant entry (data analysis/intervention)
1. Describe the proposed changes and why they are being made.
The proposed changes are: 1.) The title. The new title is “Cross-Cultural Understanding in an Online Learning Community.” This new title reflects a slight change in data analysis of the study.
2.) The primary research method. While I’ll still be analyzing the same course (GLC 202), I won’t be using interviews as heavily in this study. Instead, I’ll be analyzing the written communication of the students (OU Global Leadership Center students and Thai students) in the course website. I’ll be looking at the communication of about 30% of the students in the course. They’ll be chosen randomly. No students will be recruited to participate, as I’ll only be looking at their written communication. The communication will be analyzed qualitatively. When I write up the results of this research, I will not use students’ names. 312
APPENDIX F: PRELIMINARY CODING SCHEME
Category Code Description Relationship INTEREST Evidence that communicator thinks partner is discourse interesting or noticed through language including exaggeration, support, respect, and affection.
INGROUP Evidence that the communicators think of themselves as a group and have an emotional connection.
PERSPECTIVES Evidence of claiming common perspectives and a shared culture through seeking agreement, indicating partner is heard, showing commonalities, and presupposing a relationship.
REFLEXIVITY Evidence that the communicator wants what is best for their partner through language exhibiting concern, offers, optimism, inclusion, and explanations.
RECIPROCITY Evidence that the communicator is appreciative and willing to work together.
FULFILL WANTS Evidence that communicator wants to make partner feel liked or understood by giving gifts.
INTIMACY Evidence that the relationship is deepening as exhibited by more breadth (more topics) and depth (more personal information).
COMMIT Communicators stating the relationship is important and displaying effort to maintain relationship.
INTERDEPEND Evidence of depending on, affecting, and influencing each other, through interactive/ interpersonal messages and shared work.
INTENSE Evidence of intensifiers as epistemic modality, to show the truthfulness of a statement according to the communicator.
313
MITIGATE Evidence of mitigators as epistemic modality, to show the truthfulness of a statement according to the communicator.
Intercultural OPEN Evidence of communicator having an open and understanding curious attitude about partner, being reflective, discourse and experiencing a shift in perspective; interactions being based on equality; culturally appropriate communication.
INTERPRET Evidence of trying to increase intercultural understanding by explaining things from other’s perspective.
DISCOVERY Evidence that communicator is acquiring and acting on new knowledge about a culture by asking deep questions.
AWARENESS Evidence that communicator is evaluating perspectives, practices, or values and interacting and negotiating interculturally; knowing about partner’s culture.
Virtual RELATIONSHIP Evidence that communicators have introduced relationship MAINTENANCE each other to other virtual or non-virtual social discourse networks or talk about the future.
PERSONHOOD Evidence that communicator tried to increase personality/personhood in CMC by personalizing communication, using setting descriptors, expanding communication channels, and responding to messages quickly.
CONNECTEDNESS Evidence that communicator is trying to show they care and are connected.
COMMUNICATION Evidence that students are encouraging timely communication and are making requests for maintaining contact.
314
APPENDIX G: FINAL CODING SCHEME
Students show consideration through: General Category Specific Category Explanation
Showing interest Stating interest and “I’m interested in learning about Thailand,” in teammate and excitement in “We are excited to work with you” culture teammate or culture Asking questions that “How are you?” “How are classes going” show concern “What do you like to do for fun?” “How big for/interest in are your classes?” “When can we call?” teammate Responding to • Replying to messages, answering questions, teammates’ messages giving feedback • Responder can repeat question or just answer/give information without repeating Asking about or “I haven’t heard anything from you, so I explaining absences hope you are o.k.” “sorry I haven’t from communication communicated in a while but…” Expressing connection using “you” and personal names, greetings, and closings, “you guys” Showing Offering praise “well done,” “excellent,” “great job!” support for Expressing “good luck,” “I hope you’ll do well,” “don’t teammates encouragement stress out too bad” Expressing “thanks” appreciation Offering assistance or • Offering assignments or information (“Here information is our report,” “try looking at this website”) • Offering to help (“Let me know if you want us to look something up,” “If you have questions just ask”) Offering apologies “sorry for the confusion,” “sorry for making you work so hard”
Giving updates “Now we are working on our proposal,” “next week we will be done with…” Being thoughtful being nice/polite in requests, complimenting each other, thoughtfully handling frustration • “we hope we work well together” • “ka” used by Thais • “I hope this is helpful” Communicating • Americans using Thai language with teammates’ • Thais using & explaining Thai language language in • Americans explaining English word(s) mind • Americans modifying English for Thais 315
APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
Interview with Eva, Team One
DAWN: So, I think you know why I’m interviewing you, but it’s because I’m trying to understand the types of relationships you guys had in your Thai project with your Thai teammates before you went over to Thailand. So I’m talking to you and some other students from teams where people still communicate. ok?
EVA: ok
DAWN: The first thing is, How would you describe your relationship with the Thai teammates before you left for Thailand?
EVA: Sometimes it’d be too much, like everything was just so much excitement, it was just like (sighs)
DAWN: Theatrical, right?
EVA: Yeah, so it got kind of irritating after a while…but Elizabeth is so good at being so, like, patient, but it was definitely, I wouldn’t exchange partners…they were just so helpful.
DAWN: Well what I’m looking at is the teams that did a good job being friends, like they’re still communicating and so they’re still friends, so it’s your team and a couple other teams, and I’m looking at why your teams worked, that you just got to be friends and communicate and stuff like that….So when you were still here in the States, before you left for Thailand, how would you describe your relationship with the Thais?
EVA: It was funny because when we sent our pictures of ourselves over there it was humorous from the beginning because we knew we would just love them, and we didn’t know what to expect at all but me and Elizabeth are pretty humorous and our pictures that we sent them are like goofy and we have one where we got the sheriff to arrest us and put us in the cop car, and we sent those to them, and I think they just got the notion that we are goofy…
DAWN: Silly?
EVA: And so are they, so I felt like when we met we like already knew each other pretty much, we knew we are all goofy and…
DAWN: I saw that picture, it was really funny. Whose idea was it?
EVA: I don’t know, we just kind of walked by there and I was like This would be cool. I don’t really remember the pictures that they sent us of them, I don’t think they were really good, they were just like face shots, but like the messages they would leave, it 316 would be like part look and part message. But we didn’t know they were gay until we really got there.
DAWN. No…
EVA: Yeah, because we didn’t know Ping was gay until like way later because we didn’t want to accuse or anything, you know, but I think he just came out of the closet like three weeks to that before we came. I don’t think a lot of people knew.
DAWN: And that video conference, wow, they were over the top
EVA: It was just funny…it was so neat meeting them online because we were so pumped for it and so were they, and we just like went crazy.
DAWN: Did anything bug you about the team?
EVA: No, except for, I mean there were like stressful times, but…
DAWN: Just project stress?
EVA: Yeah, there was never any…
DAWN: Did you notice that Ping only posted like a couple messages, did you ever notice that? If you actually look through he only posted like three messages.
EVA: Are those still up?
DAWN: Yeah, they’re still there. Everything’s still there. You never noticed? You didn’t even notice?
EVA: Uh uh.
DAWN: Sometimes Koo signed his name.
EVA: Really? Um, why?
DAWN: You know, he’d say like we’ve been doing this, see you soon, whatever, Koo and Ping.
EVA: Oh.
DAWN: But Ping never really posted like that.
EVA: Actually, it’s been a while…I think yeah, our main communication was with Koo, and I think he was the only one we got a hold of on the phone.
317
DAWN: Oh you only talked to him on the phone?
EVA: Yeah, we tried to call Ping but he was on vacation.
DAWN: How many times did you call Koo?
EVA: Um, I think just once.
DAWN: What would you guys talk about? Hi…?
EVA: Yeah, we got to know each other a little bit and then we a little bit about the project. Yeah, so Koo was more in control…
DAWN: The contact guy, he was the leader? Was he kind of the team leader?
EVA: Um, yeah I would say so, because Ping was more laid-back. I think it was Koo that did a lot of the computer, like putting the project together and Ping did like the research…
DAWN: Oh, ok.
EVA: It was funny, you should have seen the first time Koo made the slideshow…It was like we wanted to have gay, we wanted to have colors to resemble, to know that we’re working with a homosexual organization, but we didn’t want it to be like ‘boom.’ His background was rainbow, and me and Elizabeth just looked at it like, uhhh. It was so funny, because it was everything that you guys hate…and like every page was just like a million colors, just imagine like a rainbow. So we came to the conclusion that there was a brochure that was really good, it was like black with a rainbow line going down.
DAWN: Oh, so you used that idea? That’s pretty good.
EVA: It look really good.
DAWN: But it still gave the idea
EVA: Yeah, because we took like, we found it from another company…We were all good about, like I went to all the gay organizations around here and collected information, and Elizabeth bought a book online and got some stuff from them, they had a lot of stuff ready.
DAWN: Looking through the stuff you guys wrote, it seemed like you guys really shared a lot, and you seemed very considerate. Would you call yourselves a considerate team?
EVA: Oh, yeah.
318
DAWN: Did you ever talk to the other teams that were going on with the GLC? Anybody you ever see frustrated?
EVA: Yeah, there were some teams that wanted to kill each other, yeah. If I had another partner besides Elizabeth I think I probably would have had a completely different type of experience, because she was just like so much fun. But I can’t imagine if she was a bad partner in Thailand, because that would have probably ruined things, because it’s not only the stress, but I think…there were some groups that were always in the computer lab, always doing stuff, but I felt like we were kind of intermediate, we our a fun time but we also had a couple of hours were we’d really work…
DAWN: Because you did so much ahead of time?
EVA: Yeah, because they did a lot of work and we did a lot of work. I remember me and Elizabeth spent like five hours a night in the library before we left, like three nights in a row.
DAWN: So it was lot of stuff?
EVA: In the end it didn’t seem like that much work really…
DAWN: Did you ever try when you were writing to Koo, he had pretty good English, right? Did you ever think about writing stuff because he was not a native English speaker, did you ever think about trying to modify anything you wrote to him?
EVA: Not really, I talk to international people all the time, so I’ve kind of adapted to it I think. I know what they know and I know what they don’t know. Because I have a Chinese friend and I have all these other international friends, so a lot of the things she doesn’t understand either. I think I am kind of good at finding words and phrases…
DAWN: That you just do naturally?
EVA: Yeah, but not really. If he didn’t understand somebody, he would ask us. But we try to not speak lingo all the time, you know. But yeah, he’s pretty good at English. It was amazing how well English they spoke.
DAWN: For never having been to the States, right?
EVA: And it was so funny because you know that word “moreover,” it was so funny because when they were presenting they had that in probably every sentence.
DAWN: It’s a big international thing.
EVA: Yeah, and I had never used that word and I did not know what it meant, so when were presenting it was just funny, speaking of considerate, because we were just like, Ok, they can say whatever they want to say. And for the speaking part, we just split it up, and 319 were like, Ok, say what you want to say and then we’d practice a few times and add some things, and it was really good. They spoke such good English, it was amazing.
DAWN: This one time he [Koo] wrote this note and he signed his actual real name. This was a long time ago, he asked for some information, he wanted you guys to go to this lesbian/gay community service in Cleveland, or to contact them…did you ever contact them?
EVA: I think I might’ve asked them to send us some information, and I think we did receive. It’s just so long ago.
DAWN: He put his real name.
EVA: But I they shorten it, you know, like a nickname, because it’s just easier. I think sometimes when they did sign their real name we’d have to think…I didn’t even know who that is…
DAWN: Koo signed it, but I don’t know, Ping could’ve written it, but it was posted by Koo…So you guys communicate through Facebook?
EVA: Mmhmm, yeah, it’s easy…
DAWN: It is, it’s amazing. Because you don’t ever lose touch. I think it’s the coolest thing because when I graduated from high school or college, if you didn’t constantly call people, then that was it…if someone changes their phone number, then that’s it, you lose them forever. I lost contact with my good, good high school friend, and the way I found her is I Googled her, and found what city was in and somehow I found her, but it took a lot of…and it was only because of Google that I could find her. But these days that won’t happen, as long as people are on Facebook
EVA: I think people check Facebook more than they want to admit. I check it a lot but I don’t talk to people a lot on it, I just look on it for entertainment, but you know people do the same thing, because that’s just the quickest way I’m sure than calling someone, and just getting a response, and…
DAWN: Yeah, and you feel connected. And Ping is on there too, or just Koo?
EVA: Um, both of them are on there.
DAWN: So you thought from the beginning that you wanted to get to know them and be friends?
EVA: Oh yeah, [can’t exactly understand here, something about wanting to be friends]
DAWN: Did they seem happy with the project?
320
EVA: Oh yeah. It was funny, towards the end, it was all like fun and games, and then it came time to present, and I cried the first day because I messed up a lot and I froze, and it was the first time and [faculty] was commenting on everyone, I like completely lost my train of thought. And it just upset me because I thought, Ok, these Thai people are speaking better English than me, because I really didn’t practice, and plus I hate speaking in front of people anyway so I probably should’ve practice a little bit more. This is like their final project and I want it to be the best that we can all put into it, and it was so upsetting that I brought it down. But they were all so supporting, and then the next day I just did a good job. They were so supportive, I was just so upset at myself. And another student was in the back giggling…
DAWN: But they’re fantastic presenters, Thais are. They’ll be quiet maybe in person, but then they get up to present…and I don’t know how they do it, especially in another language, but they’re all like that. In classes, if I have students…they’re kind of theatrical or something…The last thing was, one time you actually signed your full name, like your last name too, every other time you just put Eva or you don’t put anything at all.
EVA: Was that one of the first messages?
DAWN: No, it was towards the end.
EVA: I don’t know, I don’t know why I do that. Sometimes I do that, even with family…it’s just whatever I’m in the mood for.
DAWN: That’s it, anything else to say?
EVA: Not really, but you had a question about…
DAWN: Oh yeah, one time you wrote love.
EVA: Yeah, I guess I did… I don’t know why….
Interview with Megan, Team Two
DAWN: So what I’m interested is your team and the relationships you guys formed. In general, how would you describe your team personality?
MEGAN: American, or…?
DAWN: Everything, tell me everything about different components…
MEGAN: Originally…I’m a more outgoing person, as well as Neal is too, we really hit it off really quickly in that aspect. It was only our second project, we didn’t know everybody in GLC’s personality, we hadn’t been to Thailand yet, we weren’t as close as we were afterwards, but as we met more and started to do more group work we started to 321 see Amy’s personality too. Neal and her became really good friends. I would say that it was a good mix because I am the outgoing one who likes to ask a lot of questions; Amy is like a good organizer, in general she likes to keep things together and find answers to questions, and Neal is a great person to have around, he’s a great medium person, he’s this and he’s that, and he helped us get along really well. Our Thai teammates, when we first met them, that was a different experience because of the culture difference. They were a little more shy than we were and they were older, too, so you could definitely tell…like Jum had a real job. She taught English to students, she was just finishing up her degree, she’d been working and going to school, so it was definitely a little bit of a difference, but we got along really well with them. Som was really the more outgoing one and Jum was more the organizer one, so it was kind of funny that we had the same sort of group dynamic but with the Thai teammates. Jum held everything together and Som was the one who talked to everyone, so it was like a parallelism…
DAWN: Because Amy was the organizer, and you and Neal were the more outgoing ones.
MEGAN: Yeah, she was the one who was like We need to meet at this time, this won’t work, and me and Neal were just like Ok.
DAWN: Did you have a team leader within the Americans and within the whole thing?
MEGAN: I would say within the Americans, I would say it was probably Amy. And I think it was more by a group decision, it wasn’t really her personality that was like “I need to be in charge,” because before GLC I was always that person in high school that was like “I want to be in charge,” but she just wanted to do the PowerPoint, so that was a big thing, she wanted to do the mock brochure, so she kind of set everything, what she wanted to do, and we were kind of like “ok, well this works for us, we’ll do the rest.” She was sort of the leader position. But because they had worked on the project a little before, the leader between the two Som and Jum was definitely Jum, she was kind of the leader in that aspect. And together her and Amy collaborated about who does what for the PowerPoint and such.
DAWN: So they were kind of the co-leaders?
MEGAN: Yeah, co-leaders.
DAWN: What about your relationship before you left for Thailand, when you were only communicating online, if you can remember that? How would you describe your relationship that you had then?
MEGAN: Pretty brief. As much as you say you want to get to know people through the Internet, it’s hard when you’re using a discussion board. We hadn’t really IMed. We’d emailed a few times. It was basically work related when I think about it, because her dad was the president of…
322
DAWN: Jum’s dad?
MEGAN: Yeah, of Feed the Children Thailand, so she was just trying to help us out and tell us all she could, and it wasn’t really that personal. Som sent us pictures of herself but Jum didn’t really do much in that aspect. Som sent us a link to her Web site, and so we got to know her through that, so it wasn’t really that. As close as you can be on a database.
DAWN: You IMed a few times. No phone calls?
MEGAN: One phone call, but they weren’t really that long, and it’s hard to understand. It’s much easier to see someone speak so you can see how their hands move. It’s a lot easier to understand someone who’s just learning another languages or isn’t completely, 100% fluent in another language when you can see them and they communicate through their eyes and hands and such, so on the phone it was a lot harder to understand what they were saying.
DAWN: Was it harder for them to understand you?
MEGAN: Yeah, I think that that was a big issue, not only were we on a cell phone; we speak quickly, and when we slowed ourselves down sometimes it confused them even more. It was hard to communicate with them on the phone but it was a lot easier in person. They spoke great English in person and we communicate really well with them.
DAWN: What about the video conference?
MEGAN: The video conference was really cool because it gave you something, I don’t know if necessarily it was the number one thing for communication for us, but it gave us something to expect I guess, in a way. It wasn’t that it necessarily help us develop a bond with them, but it helped us develop an interest in developing a bond. We saw someone, and we were like “they are real people.” It’s hard to think of them as real people when you’re emailing them, but when you see them, it definitely helped. But they were like three minutes long and we mostly joked on them.
DAWN: And why do you think your team worked?
MEGAN: I would say it’s because I think that we were all really eager, it was our first real project for a real person and we were eager and willing. I really did get lucky because I worked with Amy the first time—that time—and then I worked with her on another project, the most recent one for the spring, and she’s just a really focused person when it comes to getting her work done. And that’s a great thing to have a focused person, to have a person who really likes to talk to people and to have the person who blends everyone together, and that’s why I think our team worked really well.
DAWN: Neal’s the blender?
323
MEGAN: Neal’s the blender. He can blend anyone together.
DAWN: I can imagine it, he seems pretty sweet.
MEGAN: Yeah, he’s awesome.
DAWN: And what about with your Thais?
MEGAN: I would say the reason why it worked with them is because Som you could tell was really interested in learning about us personally. She wanted to know about…like I remember a specific conversation where she wanted to know about squirrels and rabbits, because it’s something they don’t really have there, like a lot of. She just wanted to know about our lifestyle, as well as she wanted to finish the project. And Jum really kept us all on track. She wanted to know about the United States but she also was wanting to finish the project. She was sort of the focused one of the Thai teammates, so kept everyone in line. Some work and some play.
DAWN: When you guys were writing stuff in your messages, did you ever try to change your English or anything because you thought they were language learners? Did you ever think about what you wrote?
MEGAN: Yeah, definitely. Some things that we think are common greetings, like for us maybe if I’m talking to a friend I would say “hey girl” or something, but I wouldn’t say that to a Thai teammate because they might not really understand what it is. We definitely really formalized our English more. I’m learning a second language too, and it’s hard when someone uses something informal and you’re learning it in a formal sense, as in like a classroom, it’s hard to blend to two without actually being overseas and seeing it. And I knew at the time that our teammates, if they’d been overseas, it was only once. And I think Som was the only one who’d been to the United States once, and it wasn’t when she knew very much English. I figured she’d probably seen more of the formal aspect of English, so I think we formalized it a lot.
DAWN: So what other things did you do besides avoiding “hey girl”?
MEGAN: Contractions. Instead of didn’t we would write “did not” or “would not,” “is not.” A lot of other languages don’t have contractions, so I think we formalized it a lot. Sort of like when you’re writing a formal paper you’re not supposed to write contractions in it. So it was more like writing a formal paper and double checking our spelling. When I post on the database for other classmates, I don’t really double check my spelling two or three times. But when I was posting for them, we wanted to make sure we got the spelling right because they might not understand what we were trying to say. So it was definitely more formal, I’d say.
DAWN: Did you do anything, when you were on the database, special because you were trying to be friends, since you were only using the database? Is there anything you did special? 324
MEGAN: I think one of the things we did, and they did this too, talk about what’s happening at our college campuses. I know we talked about a big thing going on at the time was Halloween, what exactly Halloween is to us, and they were really fascinated by that…And talking about the leaves turning colors, and what sort of things we did with our friends. And we sent them pictures. I think we sent them probably a good 20 pictures. And also, I think a big thing we did was we were genuinely interested in what was going on with them too, and I think they felt that.. They sent us information about what they were doing with the Lantern Festival, just what they did with their friends. I think Jum had trouble sending pictures from her computer, but Som sent a lot of pictures, and she showed us her Web site, which is sort of like a Thai version of Myspace. So it was funny. Then they both got, we had them sign up for Facebook.
DAWN: Oh did they? Do you communicate through Facebook?
MEGAN: I have a few times. I think they don’t check it very much because they kind of forget about Facebook, it’s not a part of their daily life as it is for OU students. Like check your email, check your Facebook.
DAWN: No doubt. Do you ever go back and look at, who had a Facebook?
MEGAN: Som had a Facebook. Som has communicated with Amy and I, and I think even Neal, that she got a job through KoreanAir. After she graduated, she sent us all a message like “this is what I’m doing now. If you’re ever flying in Korea, look for me.”
DAWN: That’s a good job.
MEGAN: Yeah it is a good job for her.
DAWN: But you do check her page?
MEGAN: Yeah, a couple times. It’s not like every day.
DAWN: Jum included that “ka” in her messages. I noticed this one message…this is her last message where she posted pictures from your presentation, and she says, “Hope you have a safe trip to your state, ka…”
MEGAN: She said that in person too.
DAWN: When she was speaking English?
MEGAN: Yeah, she, I thought of it like Spanglish, sort of, like she’s combining what she thinks is, like ka is a thing of politeness often, and so she was really a formal person just in general. Her family was very religious, they were actually Christian, and they were very religious, so she was very formal in a lot of aspects of her life. We went out with Som, like went out with on the town with Som, but Jum didn’t really do that sort of thing. 325
She was more of like the formal person, she always said ka after everything, and I thought of it as like politeness.
DAWN: So she didn’t go out?
MEGAN: She didn’t go out, no.
DAWN: No drinking?
MEGAN: No drinking for her.
DAWN: No wild nights.
DAWN: So you most of the time signed your messages with your nickname but then one message you actually put your full name. Do you ever pay attention to stuff like that?
MEGAN: No, and it’s a really bad thing because for a long point in my life I called myself my full name and my mom did presentations for my class, she’s a doctor, so she came into to talk to us and she called me my nickname, so then my friends thought it was funny and started calling me my nickname, so I still am back and forth on it, kind of. Usually if it’s a formal paper I write my full name, if it’s an assignment I write my full name, and an e-mail is my nickname. Sometimes I’m used to spelling out forms with my full name…
DAWN: You just don’t pay attention?
MEGAN: Yeah, I just don’t pay attention really. But they knew me as my nickname.
DAWN: Which you do prefer?
MEGAN: My nickname, I think, really.
DAWN: Neal didn’t post as many messages. I don’t know if you ever noticed that.
MEGAN: I think that he, it’s not that he was less friendly than them at all, because he was probably one of the more friendly people, but Neal in general is kind of, he didn’t really post that much in general. Like he would combine all his assignments in one post, I think that’s just part of who he is, like he didn’t want to post that many things, I guess. And Amy and I—I think another thing is Neal had traveled abroad before with the schools and so he had expectations, but we had huge, massive expectations, Amy and I did, about who we’re going to meet, who we’re going to see, and I think Neal lived with a family in Spain, he met students in Spain. I think Amy and I were just more giddy about meeting our teammates and about being in Thailand and things, even though she’d already been there, but she didn’t go with students.
DAWN: That’s right, and she went there as a family trip? 326
MEGAN: She went there as a family trip, and I think she was in Bangkok for just a few days.
DAWN: Yeah, that doesn’t count.
MEGAN: That doesn’t even count.
DAWN: Now you know they’re going to Bangkok, did you hear that?
MEGAN: I know, I wanted to go to Bangkok for like a day, but I’m glad we went to Chiang Mai, it’s like so safe. I felt safe enough to just walk around there by myself. It was so nice.
DAWN: I’ve been to Bangkok three or four times, and each time I go I like it a little bit better. But the first time, I didn’t like it at all. Because if you only go once, chances are it’s kind of hard to like it.
MEGAN: Didn’t they originally go to Bangkok?
DAWN: Mmhmm.
MEGAN: Because I remember the alumni came in and we talked about the trip and they went to Bangkok, and said yeah, they were completely…I mean we were all in culture shock, but in a way it was sort of like…I guess Chiang Mai, there were no skyscrapers or anything, it was a suburban city that we’re used to. There were restaurants there, there were bars there, there was everything there that we we’re used to. It was safe, that was a big thing. I mean there were part of the city that were dirty, obviously, like the Red Light District, but overall I was really surprised at how clean the city was, especially the part we stayed in, the hostel area. It was really clean.
DAWN: Did anything bother you about the team at all?
MEGAN: Honestly, not really. I’m trying to think. There were some disagreements, they weren’t really disagreements, you can’t even call them disagreements. I guess discrepancies in visual…we were making a mock brochure and a mock billboard, and visually between the Thais and the Americans, and even between Amy and I, we just have different taste in what we like to see, or what we think people like to see. So I know for them, visually the Thai students, they like to see big, bright letters. And we’re used to saying if you have big, bright letters, it hurts your eyes and people don’t want to read it. That’s what we learned. So they kind of learned different things than we have in that aspect. But it definitely wasn’t a disagreement, we just compromised easily.
DAWN: What was that for? For the final brochure you had to make, or your PowerPoint?
327
MEGAN: Well, we did a presentation and he actually got the presentation because he speaks English, and his daughter helped make it. So, we did a slide with a billboard they could’ve put on the road, a large billboard. Jum was in charge of making what the billboard looked like, and we looked at it, and it was great, the font and the picture and everything, looked great. Except it was a white background with yellow writing, and we were like, “this is such a ‘no’ to us.” So we compromised and did yellow letters with black outline, and it made more sense to both of us, I guess. And the brochure Amy made, but we just have different tastes in brochures in general. We just have different taste in visual appearances, just in general, of brochures and things. But we definitely compromised on that, too. Neal just really had no preference either way, he’s just the blender…But Amy and I definitely disagree about anything, I can’t remember ever a time when we said “no, I don’t like that idea.”
DAWN: Ok, anything else to say about it?
MEGAN: I loved it. I’m sad and I want to go back. I’m jealous of the people who get to go this year…It was the first time I’ve ever been out of the country…
Interview with Krista, Team Three
DAWN: Ok, as you know, I’m interested in your team because you guys are still communicating and seemed to get along well in this project. So I have some questions about how you all got along before you left for Thailand. I’ll start with a big picture question about your personalities. How would you describe your personality? American teammates’ personalities? Thai teammates’ personalities? Team personality? Was there a team leader?
KRISTA: Amber as quiet and a hard worker and so was Dear. Milk had a really strong personality and was the team leader. She knew what she wanted done.
DAWN: what about you, what is your personality like?
KRISTA: I guess I’m quiet too.
DAWN: And a hard worker?
KRISTA: Yeah, I guess.
DAWN: How would you describe your relationship with the Thai teammates before you left for Thailand?
KRISTA: Ok communication. We talked a couple times on Skype before we left, just to Dear though cause Milk was out of town.
DAWN: What did you talk about? 328
KRISTA: School, where we’re from, the project. We were really confused about the project so we talked a lot about that.
DAWN: Would you describe your relationship as friendship?
KRISTA: We weren’t really friends until after we got there.
DAWN: Why did you become friends once you were in Thailand?
KRISTA: I think because Milk and Dear were really good hosts and took us out lots. We spent lots of time together.
DAWN: How do you communicate now?
KRISTA: Through Facebook, with Milk. And with Dear through email.
DAWN: Did you ever call each other before you went to Thailand?
KRISTA: No, we just used the Skype and the database.
DAWN: What do you think “worked” about your team? Why did you mesh?
KRISTA: Everyone was really thoughtful and considerate. And we all had calm personalities and got along really well.
DAWN: Did you ever try to write special for the Thais at all?
KRISTA: At first I did, but then I realized I didn’t have to.
DAWN: What do you mean?
KRISTA: They had really good English, but I didn’t know that at first. Milk is a translator and Dear’s aunt or someone is married to an American so they speak English, and her aunt teaches English, so they both were really good.
DAWN: So at first you modified your English?
KRISTA: Yeah
DAWN: Like what did you do?
KRISTA: I used simpler sentences, avoided slang and stuff.
DAWN: Then when did you figure out they had good English? 329
KRISTA: After talking to them on Skype I guess, with Dear, and then the video conference on Skype.
DAWN: Did you do anything special to try to be friends, since you had to communicate mainly through the database? (call Thais, construction of messages, pictures, etc.)
KRISTA: Not really, but we did talk about campus and Halloween and stuff. They told us about the King’s birthday. And we asked them if they wanted anything from the States.
DAWN: In some messages, you signed your nickname and in one you put your complete first and last name. Do you remember why you would have signed your full name? Would that mean anything? [showed message]
KRISTA: No, I just did it.
DAWN: Anything bother you about the team?
KRISTA: Well, the confusion about the project was frustrating.
DAWN: What did you think was the problem?
KRISTA: We thought the project was about agriculture and it was really public relations. But we didn’t find that out till we talked to the client in Thailand.
DAWN: Did the Thai students understand what the client wanted and just couldn’t explain? or what?
KRISTA: No, I think they didn’t understand either.
DAWN: Maybe the client didn’t know what they wanted?
KRISTA: Yeah, I think they weren’t really sure.
DAWN: So that was frustrating. Did you do research that you couldn’t really use in Thailand then?
KRISTA: Yeah. That was frustrating.
DAWN: Ok, was there anything else you wanted to say about the project?
KRISTA: No, that’s it.
DAWN: Ok, thanks.
330
Interview with the GLC Thai teaching assistant
DAWN: So this is what I’m doing. I’m looking at the friendships that students made with the Thais in the three teams. I have some questions about Thai culture, and stuff like that. So, some of the students used “ka” in their postings. You used “ka” in your postings, and some of the students did it too. I think I know what “ka” means, but I can’t really say what “ka” means. What does “ka” mean?
TA: It’s like a polite way to end a sentence. Even though I write something to the staff in the business faculty, I always end my sentence in English with “ka”, because if I just end it with full stop, it looks so short.
DAWN: That would be kind of rude, or something?
TA: Yeah, kind of. Maybe it’s a sensitive culture too, so when the sentence looks so short, it looks rude.
DAWN: Do you remember any of the students? There was a girl named Jum. She worked on the project with Neal and Amy and Megan. She’s the one who used “ka” a couple times and she said “here is our pics, I hope you like it guys, have a safe trip…ka”.’ So it’s just a polite term, right? And then what else? Koo, I don’t know if you remember Koo and Arm. They were kind of crazy, very theatrical, from what I saw in the video conference. They worked with Eva and Elizabeth on the gay rights and support group. He wrote this message, and he actually signed his real name. [showed message]
TA: Is it the very first letter?
DAWN: No, it was toward the end.
TA: He’s very formal, but I think he learned it from his class, like to end the letter “with best regards.” So it doesn’t mean that he wants to make a distance, but he just wanted to be correct.
DAWN: Because other messages before this, he signs “best regards,” but Koo. But this one all of a sudden he put his name. So you don’t think it really means anything?
TA: No. What’ his first name? [meaning, which one is his first name and which is his last]
DAWN: I don’t even know.
TA: I wonder if this is his first name or last name, but if this is the first name he still write it like Thai way, to put first name first and last name...
DAWN: So Thai way is what? First name first and…
331
TA: First name and last name.
DAWN: Just like Americans, right?
TA: No.
DAWN: First name first.
TA: I think the Americans put last name first.
DAWN: For what, in their letters?
TA: Mmhmm. Or first name first.
DAWN: But like Chinese, they put last name first, right?
TA: I don’t know
DAWN: Okay, I’ll find out. Because I thought, oh maybe he’s a little frustrated, because he wants some information from the Americans. So I thought maybe he was frustrated, but maybe not.
TA: He writes very formal. [in this one posting]
DAWN: Can you think of anything that the teams, some teams where the students seemed to be really different—this is a long time ago, I know—but can you remember some of the teams, and if you can, can you think of what they did that made them get to be good friends? Like anything that they did, yeah to become friends.
TA: They become good friends sometimes cross the teams when they go out together, like go to eat because you have dinner together. I think one time I suggested to go to that handicraft village, and like the Thai teammates brought a pickup truck with cab behind and they put lots of Americans in that car.
DAWN: Oh that was cute.
TA: Uh huh. So I think something like that, go together for the whole day and have some interesting activities to do together.
DAWN: What about when they were online, before they saw each other? Did you notice them do anything then to be friends?
TA: Every time I think they progressed a lot on getting word from each other. The very first part is fun, the sending pictures and make silly face, and I think that part breaks the ice a little bit. And then when it goes to word they have to get work from each other, I think they kind of stressed out a little bit. But when they go to the video conference and 332 they come back to being good again, it’s very fun. And after that, after they finished, at least some of the American students told me that “oh, I want to cry, so good.” It’s like very touching feeling. I did not remember after that if they still talk about that video conference on the Internet or not.
DAWN: Yeah, they do.
TA: Okay, so it makes a big impact…
DAWN: It is pretty fun.
TA: Uh huh. And also the gift exchange when they get to Thailand.
DAWN: Oh, they had to bring each other gifts?
TA: Yes, yeah. And something very cute, like they give dolls to each other and they take pictures.
DAWN: Do they do that at that first opening ceremony?
TA: Yeah, the first time they meet each other.
DAWN: And they have like ice breaking activities?
TA: Mmmhmm.
DAWN: Okay, what about the Thais versus the Americans. Did you see anything different in how they communicated online? Do you remember thinking anything about how they communicated?
TA: The difference between them? Not much. They tried to get word from each other. I think for the Thai part, they have teacher to screen whatever they are going to post before, so it could be more formal. But for Americans they just dump data on it. And for Americans they talk to each other on the database too, not only to the Thai students. But it’s very, very casual, like Okay, see these web sites, see these web sites, and sometimes they complain and sometimes they like say silly things there.
DAWN: Did you ever hear if the Americans ever offended the Thais or do you think the Thais were ever frustrated with anything, with the online part of the class?
TA: I don’t think so, if they get frustrated from my opinion they won’t put it online, but they come to complain to us, Oh, I am waiting for so long, and they say the are so sensitive, so what should I do? Should I go ask them, or…?
DAWN: Right. Do you think the Americans used difficult English or anything, do you think the English they used was too difficult? 333
TA: No, I don’t think they used difficult English.
DAWN: The Americans hardly ever used Thai on the database. Some students would say Sawadee ka or something, but not very much.
TA: Not much at all.
DAWN: Do you think the Thais cared?
TA: I don’t think the Thais cared. If the Thai hear Sawadee, khap khun I think that they are very happy and teach each other more…
DAWN: Last one…I’m looking what students might have done to become friends because they weren’t face-to-face, so like they had the video conference, they called each other on their phones…
TA: Yes, that opening ceremony they have set up time to meet each other but that doesn’t work that well because the Thai students very busy and the Americans kind of work on their own. But I think they try to get in touch with each other and it depends on the character of the group. Some groups just stay in the computer lab and work all the time. Some groups like, what group was that? [students’ names] they try to work and they work well, so when their work is done they can go out…
DAWN: Go play.
TA: Go play.
DAWN: Yeah, that’s nice….
TA: Oh, something some problem. What group is that? [names]?
DAWN: [name]. Girl?
TA: Girl
DAWN: She left.
TA: No, she left to study abroad and then she didn’t come back. And what’s the name, it starts with ‘k’
DAWN: [name]?
TA: [name], the first year.
DAWN: [name], maybe? 334
TA: Yes. [faculty] was on that team. And he said that they wouldn’t do anything. He asked them to go to the shop, just like a herbal shop, they don’t want to go, and then there is like complain and they don’t want to get into Thai shop at this point to go shopping.
DAWN: Oh my gosh.
TA: And somehow her group said they work, but [faculty] said they don’t work, so I don’t know. And they said they tried to get to shop, but it’s not useful. So I don’t know…
DAWN: The Thais thought it’s not useful?
TA: I think the Americans though it’s not useful, and [faculty] tried to push them to go there but they just complained and don’t do the work and he tried to push them to work and, this is the group when the project end they still communicate with each other.
DAWN: Huh, so it didn’t really matter?
TA: It didn’t really matter, and they support each other like Oh you work so hard, we help each other.
DAWN: Oh they were really supportive?
TA: Yeah, and This is a problem, you have to fix it. I think they have good communication within the group, but [faculty] said the Thai teammates are very good. So only like the Thai teammates work.
DAWN: Probably that happened a lot. So let’s see, qualities of good teams. Good teams, they were supportive of each other, what are the things that good teams do?
TA: Some groups like [student name’s] group, he’s like so, like want to have fun and inspire the group, but [faculty] said he doesn’t work.
DAWN: Right, but sometimes students don’t really care.
TA: Right, he made the spirit of the group go well.
DAWN: Makes everyone get excited?
TA: Uh huh.
DAWN: Okay, what else? Inspiring, fun, supportive…
TA: Sometimes you have to be clever, like that group, the hotel group in, what’s that? I’m not sure…Jen and somebody…
335
DAWN: Oh the ones who work hard?
TA: No, the one who doesn’t work hard but they work good, so they have a lot of time. In the end, this be the best group. And [faculty] asks me Are you sure they work good? I said, I’m sure. Every morning he would see them go out to different swimming pools.
DAWN: Oh my gosh. What other things for becoming friends, what other things did they have to do to be friends?
TA: Maybe they bring them to their families, like that hotel. The first day, the hotel of his uncle’s or even his family say Okay you go to talk to this uncle who explain to you about the hotel.
DAWN: What other things when they didn’t see each other, when they were online?
TA: Just online…I’m not sure if the online thing really helped them. Maybe yes, but what I see is the Thai students always try to get their work done to submit it to the Thai teachers and Americans try to find, get information and communicate with themselves and sometimes try to get information from Thai students.
DAWN: They’re both kind of going like this, right? Instead of as much like this?
TA: Yeah, but they try to get information from the Thai to, because they don’t understand what the organization is, and sometimes the Thai cannot really explain to them. Like that group, Krista, what is her name?
DAWN: Krista [last name]?
TA: Krista and Amber had a hard time and the project itself is difficult. They kind of have so many directions that they cannot even forecast what their organization want to be. It’s NGO, non-profit, but I think the lady there, she wanted to make it a place for her to get grants to go to other countries. So it’s kind of profit and non-profit at the same time. And it’s very confusing and the kids just get confused.
DAWN: Did they seem to be friends though even though they had a hard time with the project?
TA: Yes, they’re the group who works at the computer all the time, they wouldn’t get to go anywhere.
DAWN: It was really hard?
TA: It was really hard. This group work all the time, I feel bad for them that they have no time to go out.
DAWN: And still it wasn’t very good? 336
TA: No. But [students’ names] they just go out all the time.
DAWN: right, … Okeydokey, well I think that’s it.
TA: That’s it?
DAWN: That’s it, thank you. See this is what I have, I came up with, like this is my coding scheme, so my idea is that in order for them to become friends online they have to be considerate of each other, they have to show interest in each other, excitement and then support each other, and that’s all the ways that they do it.
TA: And this is what Americans always say, and the Thais will copy them [referring to praise such as excellent]
DAWN: Oh, so you think the Thais copy them?
TA: Yes, yes. In general, the Thais don’t say “good job” to each other.
DAWN: Oh they don’t? Thais don’t praise each other?
TA: No, not much. But Americans are so expressive, they say, “Good job!” “Excellent!” Thais will say “Oh, good! Very good!” But then they will copy “excellent,” “outstanding.”
DAWN: So Thais say “nice job” but not crazy?
TA: Uh huh. Something like this, if you’re e-mailing…If Thai say “don’t worry about this,” it doesn’t mean that.
DAWN: [It doesn’t mean] Don’t worry? It really means like “please work on this,” or something like that, right?
TA: Actually, it’s better to say nothing. Like “don’t worry about this,” Americans will think Oh, it’s not anything, so we won’t think about it, but Thai think It’s still a problem, but I don’t want you to be obsessed with it.
DAWN: So if they say nothing, that means it’s not a problem?
TA: Mmhmm. I’m not sure if Thai will ask Americans if they don’t understand stuff.
DAWN: Probably not.
TA: Maybe not, maybe yes. I do not notice that, but it will help them a lot.
DAWN: If they asked? 337
TA: If they asked, they’re afraid to ask. … Or maybe the word is just simple like I can translate every word but I don’t know what it means. Drop the ball. So what is that supposed to mean? Maybe they say I guess it should be that, and they don’t ask.
DAWN: Especially in the beginning when the Americans are writing, like the autobiographies are very formal, most of them, so I bet the Thais must have some problems with some of the stuff that they say. It’s kind of really academic, I don’t know, just the way they write their autobiographies especially, they’re not very reader-friendly.
TA: If it’s academic I think they can get it, literally from the dictionary, they can get it from the dictionary, but if it’s something …
DAWN: Like an idiom?
TA: Yeah, something that is not means mean that.
DAWN: Some of the messages, both the Thais and the Americans did this, they would sign both their names. Like if we’re on a team, I would sign Dawn and TA. Do you think Thais would do that more than Americans, or does that mean anything? Do you think Thais work together more?
TA: Yeah, I think if they sit together they will put both of their names.
DAWN: You know the whole thing about collectivist cultures, right, and individualistic cultures. Do you think Thais worked together more on this project on their teamwork, and the Americans, what do you think? It was kind of about the same.
TA: I think because we have assignments for the Americans then they have to submit it like every week, every two weeks, they somehow have to work together. But for Thais I think most of them live on campus so they might spend more time together by themselves.
DAWN: So the Thais would do it together even if you didn’t make them do it together?
TA: Yeah, like Ok let’s meet at 6 and then we work together until 10 or 11. But for Americans they would say Let’s meet at 6 until 8.
DAWN: Or 6:30…?
TA: Yeah, or until 6:30 and then, I have to go.
DAWN: And then they work individually, but the Thais will work together you think more?
338
TA: I think if they have to write a paper maybe they even sit together, I’m not too sure about that.
Email interview with Thai GLC Teaching Assistant From the teaching assistant: D = Dawn P = Pang
D: Hey, I have a general Thai culture question. I noticed in my dissertation research that overall the Thai students said more thank you's than the Americans in their database communication. P: I never realize that!!
D:Do you have any opinions/ideas about Thais and saying thank you? P: Thais will say thank you when they appreciate something that they aren't just take it for granted. For example, they will say thank you to their American teammate a lot because they really appreciate the Americans. But, they might ignore or unaware to thanks their Thai teammate since they think their Thai teammates have to do it anyway (take their Thai friends' effort for granted.)
D: Do you think that's a big Thai thing, to say thanks? P: Yes, if it's for something they do appreciate. In other wards, the Thais say thanks in order to acknowledge the other's effort.
D: Have you noticed that Thais say thanks more than Americans? P: Actually, no - for Thais to Thais. But yes - for Thais to Americans.
D: Or do you think we say thanks lots too, that maybe the difference in their database communication might be due to course design or some other factor, not culture? P: Yes, I do believe Americans say a lot of thank yous, too.
D:Let me know what you think, thanks, P: See!! You say thank you, too ;)