Critical examination of factors affecting interaction on CMC

Promoting Student’s Online Engagement with Communication Tools

“…This finding confirmed previous studies (Lobry de Bruyn, 2004, Thomas, 2002 tion in threaded discussions was unequal and of varying quality. Findings from this study also proved two items in Tu's (2000) list of issues that required attention for a successful online interaction. They were (1) misunderstanding due to lack of non-verbal cues and failure to share meanings within system boundaries; and (2) lost in threaded messages as well as heavy workload (e.g., heavier reading load for online learners, time-consuming process of moderating class conferences, daily individual interactions).…”

Social Aspects of CSCL Environments: A Research Framework

“…Indeed, it makes a difference if CSCL members already know the others in the conversation. If this is the case, then this may increase the degree of social presence (Tu, 2002).…”

“…Rettie (2005) stated that "although most research on social presence has been done with strangers, the salience of the other is likely to be less dependent on cues when people already know one another" (p. 358). She thus suggested that knowing others influences the degree of social presence and that once a mental model of the other exists, communication cues become less important to sustaining social presence (see also Tu, 2002). However, research is needed to confirm the relationship between mental model and social presence.…”

Interactivity Between Protégés and Scientists in an Electronic Mentoring Program

“…Walther and Burgoon (1992) cite the removal of visual communication cues as a particular disadvantage, because nonverbal behavior generally carries relational information. In an educational setting, students may detect less individuality in others if the teacher/moderator is unable to create a sense of ''social presence,'' for example, through the use of ''emotions'' or humor (Tu, 2000).…”