WWWWWWW W WWWWWW WWW WWWWW

3 12930

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Frequency, Continuity of Participation,
and Content in an Online Virtual Community
for Education Professionals

presented'by

Vickie L. Banks

has been accepted towards fulfillment
ofthe requirements for

Ph.D. (kgnmin Counseling, Educational
Psychology, and Special Education

(J . QM Dal

Major professor

 

 

[hue December 18, 1997

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE

WW ll 4 final

WW 2 3 2002

 

 

 

5,09? 03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m animal-9659.14

 

FREQUENCY, CONTINUITY OF
PARTICIPATION, AND CONTENT
IN AN ONLINE VIRTUAL COMMUNITY
FOR EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS

By

Vickie L. Banks

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Comiseling, Educational
Psychology and Special Education

1997

ABSTRACT

FREQUENCY, CONTINUITY OF
PARTICIPATION, AND CONTENT
IN AN ONLINE VIRTUAL COMMUNITY
FOR EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS

By
Vickie L. Banks

In this study, conducted by the main editor of a well-known public e-mail list
for educators, insight is provided into how successful learners are using email lists as
a medium for professional development. Archives of messages available to the public
via the Internet and the World Wde Web are analyzed to show usage patterns and
incidence of various categories of postings. A descriptive analysis of types of content
in messages published on the EDTECH list between February 1989 and January
1997 is combined with an aggregate quantitative analysis of numbers and changes in
frequency patterns of messages posted at various points in this period of time. In the
study discussion is included on numbers of postings, spread of postings over
subscribers posting, differences between original postings and replies, and numbers
of inquiries vs. informational postings, etc. The analysis concentrates on providing a
rich and detailed analysis of EDTECH as a professional learning environment. The
main goal of this study is to describe in detail the activity of a list and its educational
benefits from analyzing its publicly available archives.

The study concludes that frequency of posting may be predictive of continuity
and duration of participation. Somewhat stable frequency patterns can be observed
irrespective of which subscribers are participating at any given time. Content,
though reflecting the events of the time, tends to follow patterns as to its intent and

overall purpose.

Capxfisht by
Vickie L. Banks
1997

Dedicated to the subscribers and participants of EDTECH,
who inspire me daily with their insights and great

willingness to help others expand their understanding of the
uses of technology in education.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is a producr of and a tribute to a great many people, who
supported and encouraged its completion over the years. The dissertation was
made possible by the MSU College of Education and H-Net Humanities Online
staff and facilities, as well as the staff at the MSU Computer Lab. They have
provided much needed servers, software, and technical support. I’m grateful to
recent EDTECH editors: Karin Beil, Lisa Hinchliffe, Bob Eiffert, Eric Whitehill,
Barbara Rosenfeld, and Brad Pearl volunteered extra time and effort to help free
me to work research over the past year. The Lansing Community College
faculty, especially Mary Garrett and Gary Heisler offered many useful suggestions
on how to teach and write at the same time.

My committee members have all been involved with EDTECH and my
participation with it for several years. Patrick Dickson helped me through the
writing process with great insight and understanding of what it takes to finish
such a major project. Leighton Price advised me and offered his ongoing belief in
me from the beginning. Joe Byers served as faculty advisor and co-owner for
EDTECH since it started and has been careful reader and critic of my research.

With the coming of H-NET to MSU, Mark Kornbluh opened up the possibility

vi

of expanding the availability of the EDTECH archives via H-NET’s WWW site,
and enabled me to conduct a much more sophisticated level of research.

At a more personal level, thanks to Bill Metcalfe and the members of my
dissertation support group, who stayed with me through all the ups and downs of
the last few years. My parents, John and Angeline Banks, have always supported
and encouraged me in my education up to and including finishing this
dissertation. Mary Ann Jesse and Mary Duff-Silverman never lost faith in my
finishing, and Jeff Gaynor kept things together and moving during the home

stretch when it looked like it couldn’t be done.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................... 1
Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Significance .................................................................................. 1
Definitions and Dimensions of Professional Electronic Mail
Communication Networks ............................................................................ 2
Review of Related Literature ............................................................................ 8
Background on Determining and Comparing Continuity,
Duration, Frequency and Content ........................................................ 8
How Desirable are Continuity, Duration and Frequency? .................... 9
Definitions and Research Related to Frequency, Continuity,
Duration and Content ......................................................................... 12
Research Questions ........................................................................................ 18
Organization of the Study .............................................................................. 19
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 21
Approach ........................................................................................................ 2
Archived Materials ......................................................................................... 24
Generation of Descriptive Statistics ............................................................... 26
Ethical Issues ................................................................................................... 27
Standards for Measurement of Frequency, Continuity and Duration .......... 29
Use of Visual Displays .................................................................................... 30
Description of Base Month Frequency, Continuity and Duration
Parameters .................................................................................................... 32
General Structure ........................................................................................... 33

viii

 

CHAPTER 3
HISTORY, DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS

OF EDTECH PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................... 34
History and Timeline ..................................................................................... 34
The First Months of EDTECH ............................................................. 35
The First Five Years ............................................................................... 41
Years Six through Eight ......................................................................... 43
Summary of Number of Postings .................................................................. 44
People Involved in Moderating and Managing EDTECH ............................ 45
Sponsors and Technical Support .................................................................... 45
Where does EDTECH appear? ...................................................................... 46
Topics Generally Not Discussed on EDTECH ............................................ 46
Classes on EDTECH ...................................................................................... 48
Geographical Distribution of Subscribers ...................................................... 49
Gender of EDTECH Participants ................................................................. 52
Summary ......................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 4
FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION ............................................................... 55
Overview ........................................................................................................ 55
Selection and Analysis of Base Months .......................................................... 57
Frequency Categories ..................................................................................... 60
November 1992 Frequency ............................................................................ 61
Outlier in November 1992 .................................................................... 67
November 1995 Frequency ............................................................................ 70
November 1996 Frequency ............................................................................ 75
Comparison of November 1992, 1995 and 1996 ........................................... 81
Conclusions and Areas for Future Study ....................................................... 87
Questions for Further Study .................................................................. 88
CHAPTER 5
CONTINUITY AND DURATION OF PARTICIPATION ........................... 90
Overview ........................................................................................................ 90
Continuity for 1992 and 1995 Base Months .................................................. 93
General Three Month Continuity Comparisons ........................................ 100
Continuity by Frequency Category ............................................................ 105
Continuity Comparisons ............................................................................. 106
Continuity for Multiple Posters ................................................................... 111
Duration over Eight Years ........................................................................... 119
November 1992 Base Month ............................................................... 123

ix

 

November 1995 Base Month ............................................................... 124

Duration by Frequency Category ................................................................ 126
Summary, Conclusions and Areas for Further Study of Duration ............. 130
CHAPTER 6
CONTENT ................................................................................................................... 132
Overview ...................................................................................................... 132
Number of Postings per Topic .................................................................... 134
Topics ........................................................................................................... 141
Application Software ........................................................................... 147
Curriculum ........................................................................................... 150
Internet-related Software and Resources .............................................. 153
Research and Professional Development ............................................. 156
Policy and Philosophy ......................................................................... 159
Operating Systems ............................................................................... 162
Hardware .............................................................................................. 166
LAN 5 and Servers ................................................................................ 169
Administrative and Miscellaneous ....................................................... 173
Net-Happenings Messages .................................................................... 174
Initial, Response and Broadcast Messages .................................................... 175
Summary, Conclusions and Areas for Further Study of Content .............. 180
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 183
History, Description and Characteristics ............................................................... 183
Frequency of Participation ..................................................................................... 184
Continuity and Duration of Participation ............................................................. 185
Content ................................................................................................................... 186
Areas and Questions for Further Study ................................................................. 188
Frequency of Participation ............................................................................ 188
Continuity and Duration of Participation .................................................... 190
Content .......................................................................................................... 191
Summary of Areas for Further Study ............................................................ 193
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Coding Instructions ............................................................... 194
Selected Pages from the EDTECH List WWW Site .................................. 198
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 217

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 - Definition of Frequency .................................................................... 12
Figure 1.2 - Definition of Continuity ................................................................... 13
Figure 1.3 - Definition of Duration ...................................................................... 14
Figure 1.4 - Definition of Content ....................................................................... 16
Figure 3.1 - Purpose of EDTECH ........................................................................ 34
Figure 3.2 - March 1989 Topics on EDTECH ..................................................... 37
Figure 3.3 - April 1989 EDTECH Topics ............................................................ 39
Figure 3.4 - May 1989 Topics Discussed on EDTECH ....................................... 41
Figure 3.5 - Number of EDTECH Subscribers .................................................... 42
Figure 3.6 - EDTECH Postings by Month .......................................................... 44
Figure 3.7 - Subscribers by Area, February 1, 1997 ............................................. 49
Figure 3.8 - Geographical Distribution of EDTECH Subscribers, Feb. 1996 ..... 50
Figure 3.9 - Geographical Distribution, February 1, 1997 ................................... 51
Figure 3.10 - Gender Comparison 1992 vs. 1995 .................................................. 52
Figure 3.11 - Gender Comparison Charts ............................................................ 53
Figure 4.1 - Overview of Frequency Chapter ...................................................... 55
Figure 4.2 - Number of Postings in 3 Base Months ............................................. 58
Figure 4.3 - Number of EDTECH Posters .......................................................... 59
Figure 4.4 - Number of Times Each List Member Posted, Nov. 1992 (focus on

participants) .................................................................................... 62
Figure 4.5 - Percentage of Postings by Categories of Poster, Nov. 1992 ............. 64
Figure 4.6 - Number of Messages Posted by Individual Subscribers (focus on

messages) ......................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.7 - Number of Messages Sent by Each Category of Poster,

Nov. 1992 ........................................................................................ 67
Figure 4.8 - Number of Times Each Category of Member Posted (Outlier

Removed) ........................................................................................ 69
Figure 4.9 - How many times did each list member post? ................................... 71
Figure 4.10 - Nov. 1995 Participant Posting Frequencies by Percentage ............ 72
Figure 4.11 - Messages Posted by Bach Category of Poster ................................. 74
Figure 4.12 - % of Messages Sent by Different Frequency Posters ...................... 75
Figure 4.13 - How Many Times Did Each List Participant Post

in Nov. 1996? ................................................................................. 77
Figure 4.14 - Percentage of Postings by Category, Nov. 1996 ............................. 78

xi

Figure 4.15 - Number of Messages Posted by Individual Subscribers ................. 80

Figure 4.16 - How Many Messages Did Each Category Send in Nov. 1996? ...... 81
Figure 4.17 - Comparison of Nov. 1992, 1995 8c 1996 Posting Patterns ............ 83
Figure 4.18 - Comparison of Number of Times Each Participant Posted ........... 84
Figure 4.19 - Comparison of Nov. 1992, 1995 and 1996 Posting Patterns .......... 85
Figure 4.20 - Comparison of Number of Messages Sent November 1992,

1995 and 1996 ................................................................................ 86
Figure 4.21 - Comparison of Number of Messages Sent (1992

outlier removed) .......................................................................... 87
Figure 5.1-Overview of Continuity & Duration Chapter .................................. 90
Figure 5.2— Summary of Posters and Postings over 3 Months ............................ 94
Figure 5.3 - Comparison of Number of Oct., Nov. 8!. Dec. Postings ................. 96
Figure 5.4 - Comparison of Number Postings/ Poster ......................................... 97
Figure 5.5 - Comparison Postings/ Poster (outliers removed) .............................. 98
Figure 5.6 - Continuity Comparisons, November 1992 8: 1995 ........................ 100
Figure 5.7 - Continuity of Participation in Nov. 1992 and Nov. 1995 ............... 102
Figure 5.8 - Comparative Continuity .................................................................. 104
Figure 5.9 - Single Posters in Nov. 1992 8C Nov. 1995 ........................................ 107
Figure 5.10 - Single Posters, November 1992, Compared with Preceding and

Following Months ......................................................................... 108

Figure 5.11 - Single Posters, Nov. 1995 by Posting ............................................. 109
Figure 5.12 - Comparative Continuity for Single Posters ................................... 110
Figure 5.13 - Continuity for November 1992 ..................................................... 112
Figure 5.14 - 1992 Continuity by Posting Frequency ......................................... 113
Figure 5.15 - November 1992 Continuity by Percentage ................................... 115
Figure 5.16 - Continuity for November 1995 Postings ....................................... 116
Figure 5.17 - Continuity by Number of Postings -— Nov. 1995 .......................... 117
Figure 5.18 - Multiple Postings by Percentage ................................................... 118
Figure 5.19 - Messages and Posters in November Over 8 Years ......................... 121
Figure 5.20 - Duration based on November 1992 ............................................... 123
Figure 5.21 - 1995 Duration for November over 8 Years ................................... 124
Figure 5.22 - Duration of Participation by Percentage ....................................... 125
Figure 5.23 - Duration by Frequency Category .................................................. 126
Figure 5.24 - Duration by Frequency Category .................................................. 128
Figure 6.1 - Overview .......................................................................................... 132
Figure 6.2 - Summary of Number of Postings per Topic ................................... 134
Figure 6.3 - Comparison of Postings per Topic 1992 8: 1995 ............................. 135
Figure 6.4 - Tapics with 2, 3 and 4 or More Messages, 1992 ............................... 136

xii

Figure 6.5 - Topics with a Single Message, 1992 .................................................. 137

Figure 6.6 - Topics with 4 or More Messages, November 1995 .......................... 138
Figure 6.7 - Topics with 2 or 3 Messages, November 1995 ................................. 139
Figure 6.8 - Topics with a Single Message, November 1995 ........................ 140—141
Figure 6.9 - Summary of EDTECH Content, November 1992 ......................... 143
Figure 6.10 - Summary of November 1992 Content (outlier removed) ............. 144
Figure 6.11 - Summary of November 1995 Content (first 14 days) .................... 145
Figure 6.12 - Comparison of Categories of Messages Sent During Nov. 1992

8C the First 2 Weeks of Nov. 1995 .............................................. 146
Figure 6.13 - Application Software Summary ..................................................... 147
Figure 6.14 - Summary of Curriculum Messages ................................................ 150
Figure 6.15 - Summary of Internet-related Messages ........................................... 153
Figure 6.16 - Summary of Research and Professional Development .................. 156
Figure 6.17 - Summary of Policy and Philosophy .............................................. 159
Figure 6.18 - Summary of Operating Systems Messages ..................................... 162
Figure 6.19 - Summary of Hardware Messages ................................................... 166
Figure 6.20 - Summary of LAN 5 and Servers Messages ...................................... 169
Figure 6.21 - Summary of Administrative and Miscellaneous Messages ............. 173
Figure 6.22 - Summary of Net-Happenings Messages ......................................... 174
Figure 6.23 - Initial vs. Response Messages .......................................................... 177
Figure 6.24 - Comparison of Initial vs. Response Postings ................................. 179

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Overview

This chapter begins with a discussion of the purpose and significance of a
study on frequency, continuity and duration of participation and content in
EDTECH, an online virtual community for education professionals. Next some of
the dimensions for studying professional electronic mail communication networks are
defined. A review of relevant literature on frequency, continuity and duration, and on
content follows, concluding with a statement of the research questions and an

explanation of the organization of the chapters in the rest of the Study.

Purpose and Significance

The purpose of this study is to better understand the dynamics and
educational value of EDTECH, a long-running online discussion group used by
professionals in the field of educational technology, by engaging in a rich quantitative
and graphical examination of the archives of its messages. The EDTECHlist is
multidimensional or multi—access. Though primarily a classic moderated LiStserv e-
mail list, it is also gatewayed to Usenet News and several private bulletin boards. To
accomplish this research, archives of messages (known as “logs”) were analyzed in

three main domains at different points in time between 1989 and 1997. Patterns and

incidence of participation behaviors and/ or types content were shown. Of specific
interest were those that might indicate the extent and effectiveness of the use of the
electronic group in enhancing the participants’ professional effectiveness by helping
them solve problems, and by offering them new information, concepts or procedures
to use in educational settings.

There is growing attention being paid to the centrality of Internet
communications as a part of education. As Gates (1995) indicates, the popularity of
the Internet is an extremely important development in the world of computing. He
predicts its ongoing very rapid development as a resource for sharing information
and teaching resources. Rheingold (1993) insists in his well-known work on virtual
communities, that the real frontiers of the Internet and the place most deserving of
attention, is the electronic communities that evolve with e-mail or bulletin boards.
There is also a growing body of commentary on how use of different online mediums
strongly impact identity (T urkle, 1995). During the period of this study, all over the
world, electronic networking began to be emphasized as an important possibility
(Association of African Universities, 1993). This was an era where the ability to
interact skillfully and network, a form of practical intelligence, grew in respect over
more traditional forms of ability (Goleman, 1995).

Definitions and Dimensions of Professional Electronic Mail
Communication Networks

In this study there is a detailed look at the way people participated in the
EDTECH e-mail list. Before embarking on the discussion of what research has been
done and exactly how EDTECH worked, it is important to attempt a definition of
what EDTECH was between 1989 and 1997. During that period EDTECH evolved
in overall format and content. What it was can be reflected by its artifacts - archives
of messages available in different formats. But to fully understand these artifacts, an
understanding of the genre, context and enabling technologies of the period is
essential. In this Chapter the study is placed in historical context so that the
implications of the study can be better understood by those n0t versed in all of the
relevant technologies, or who were not using them over all the period of their
evolution, particularly during the years of the study.

This survey of background will be accomplished in two ways: by historical
descriptions and by looking at various dimensions that characterize discussion
groups. In order to effectively discuss some of the technologies central to computer
conferencing, it will be important to define and describe certain of the major
elements involved.

Static definitions, while essential, are insufficient to describe the place of

professional electronic conferencing or its advantages and impacts in isolation. The

new genres exist in symbiosis with older ones, product and extension of them, as well
as pointing to new possibilities. As Rich Gold (1997) comments:

Genres change as social patterns change. When the web was young only a

hundred years ago, one got to a specific page by walking the tree: clicking

from blue link to blue link. This meant that the designer of a page knew that

a consumer went through intermediate pages. With the advent of search

engines (such as Alta Vista) a consumer could go directly to a page. But an

informal survey suggested that most sites one goes to are because a human

told them about an address, or handed them a w on a small piece of

paper, or they saw the url in a magazine article or ad. In other words, the web

currently works because it exists in a sea of other genres and documents,
most of which are not electronic.

As this study examines how, how long and how much people participated in the
group, fundamentally it is necessary to understand what they might have been
participating in, to derive any real understanding of the possible impact of that
participation. In addition, we may ask, "What were the EDTECH participants
doing?" as they sent thousands of messages over an 8 year period. How was this
different and how was this the same as what people have always done? What is
unique about it? How does any uniqueness and/ or sameness relate to its educational
impact?

"Technology refers to any machine or process that makes work easier or that
helps people get something they need or want.” (Hirsch, 1989, p. 246). An e-mail
discussion group essentially involves people broadcasting information and engaging
in discussion with groups at a distance on an asynchronous basis. Though this
medium is relatively new, all of the elements have historical antecedents ranging back
to antiquity. Cave paintings, stelae, and early newsletters or broadsheets could be

considered early bulletin boards. Drum messages, smoke signals, homing pigeons
and even the pony express carried communications to individuals and groups at a
distance. Researchers find problems of interpretation, technical language, encoding
and Other "modern" issues even in these early mediums (Hart, 1991; Crystal, 1997).
In the late 19th and early 20‘h centuries, the development of radio, telegraph,
telephone, and television set the stage for the computer revolution of the late 20th
century. The fact that the World Wde Web grew from nothing to several million
users within a few years leads people to believe that the new possibilities for
communication are recent. But as Dertouzos (1997) points out, the first computer
communities were formed over 30 years ago. Many of these innovations were also
predicted even earlier in science fiction and other speculative thought (Paninder,
1995; Ash, 1975). Though there were many examples of help-based networks over
time, Amateur Radio provides a realisric early model for much of the electronic mail
networking activity, mirroring it in style and intent (Radio Amateur’ 5 Handbook,
1946) and offering a code of ethics closely paralleled by Internet list managers and
participants.

Cross and Raizman (1986) define electronic mail as including on-to-one or
one-to-many communications that include data, text, audio or graphics, and are
transmitted electronically. They indicate that electronic messaging itself reaches back
to the mid-1880's with telegraphic and facsimile transmissions. According to
Campbell-Kelly and Aspray (1996) electronic mail had never been an important

motivation in the development of the original Internet, but eventually became a
driving force behind its development. According to Hafner and Lyon (1996) e-mail
began in the 1960's on time-share systems and exploded outward rapidly as one of
the most popular and essential applications of the growing Internet. In the period
1989-1997, e-mail was largely accomplished by a person typing text into a terminal or
personal computer and sending it in text format to recipients. The speed of typing
and transmission depended on modern speeds, which in 1989 were largely in the
1200-2400 baud rate for average subscribers. Transmission rates and fasrer LAN
useage gradually increased as time passed, so that by 1997 most subscribers were
accessing EDTECH messages it 28,000 baud or faster, a factor that may have
contributed to increased volume. In general messages received were text based, since
EDTECH didn't accept formatted mail during the time of the study. They were
received individually by most subscribers, and selectively opened and read As time
passed, people made increasing use of filters and other aids to handling mail volume,
allowing more efficiencyin dealing with list messages.

EDTECH is primarily a Listserv list. Listserv began as a plain mailing list
program created by Ruchs and Oberst. Then about 1986 it was revised by Eric
Thomas and has since become a platform for scholarly collaborative work (Gilster,
1995). By about 1993 LaQuey (1993) says there were about 2600 mailing lists on the
Internet (most not listservs). She defines Listserv as an automatic discussion list

service, but speaks more of Usenet News as a basis of online community. By 1993

EDTECH was already having an impact in books on the Internet, and was listed as
one of the major educational Internet mailing lists (Hardie and Neou, 1993).
Dimensions for studying communication networks. Discussion groups
cannot be precisely defined, as they vary over many dimensions with respeCt to
structure, genre, participants and content. Many researchers concentrate on the
technological and functional possibilities of systems. For example Rapaport (1991)
emphasized that a working system must be available, have good leadership and
support, a purpose and be adequate to handle the discussion, but did not discuss the
dynamics of understanding the human factors or the quality of the content that
would be generated by putting them in place. Some of the dimensions that will be
discussed in this study are listed below. These are only a few of the possible ways
one could characterize e-mail discussion groups. Additional topics and areas of study

for further research will be recommended in the concluding chapter.

Structure and Genre

0 High volume vs. low volume - number and size of communications in words or
in time it takes to view, read or participate

0 Frequent vs. infrequent -- frequency with which messages arrive.

0 Interactive vs. broadcast - ability of participant to influence and create content

Participants
Short-range vs. distant - physical spread of participants
0 Frequency - the same people vs. different people participating - referring to the
relative volume of postings by each individual
0 Duration and stability - the same people continuing to participate short vs. long
term - referring to whether the same peOple participate at different points in time
0 Widespread with regard to participation vs. not - number of active and passive
participants

Content

Helping others vs. self promotional
Lesser vs. greater diversity of topic
Responsive to questions vs. not

Requests and responses (promises and assertions) vs. declarations and
assessments.

Review of Related Literature

In this section some studies in the area will be discussed, as well as related
research in communication, computer mediated communication, and virtual
communities. Since e-mail conferencing groups are a relatively new phenomena,
research is somewhat limited. There are anecdotal reports (Shirky, 1995) but few in-
depth and longitudinal studies of the general dimensions of electronic list and
conference participation. There are several centers actively promoting additional
research at the present time though. The Center for the Study of Online Community
at UCLA encourages studies that focus on how computers and networks alter
pe0ple's capacity to form and work with groups, organizations, and institutions.
While not a research center per se, The Well with its over 260 Conferences on a wide
variety of subjects is the object of many research papers on Virtual Communities and

the use of Internet Conferencing in general.

Background on Determining and Comparing Continuity,
Duration, Frequency and Content

Continuity, duration and frequency of participation within professional and
scholarly electronic mail discussion groups is an expanding area of discussion and

 

study in general research on computer mediated and networked communication
(Rojo, 1995; Rafaeli, et. al., 1994). The length of time one participates and frequency
of posting seem likely to be related to a participant’s experience in the group, so
researchers generally comment on, or actively pursue data on these. This is not the
sense in which duration is used in this study. There are several ways that researchers
often consider duration and frequency. This study will concentrate on the duration of
active participation, the length of time a person evidenced active, public participation
in the group by making public postings. It attempts to reflect the sense of continuity
of participants people might experience if they participate in the group continuously
across a span of time. If, as is common with a large and active groups, they drop in
and out of the group, participating or reading its archives at different points over
time, it will discuss how likely it is the people would feel they are returning to the
same, rather than a different group. We are looking at what a person might find
familiar and continuing in the group as a virtual learning community, as well as
evidence about how many participants remain with the group for varying periods.

How Desirable are Continuity, Duration and Frequency?

Is it better to remain in a group for a longer vs. a shorter period of time?
Many researchers accept that it is better if participants remain active for a longer,
rather than for a shorter period of time, and that it is preferable to have a greater,

rather than a lesser, frequency of participation. (Rojo, 1995; Zenhausern, 1997)

10

There is considerable merit to this approach, as much of the activity generated by an
e-mail discussion group never appears in the archives of the list itself.

It is common for participants to mainly be involved in groups as readers or
lurkers, who benefit from messages but do not respond publicly. They may use the
information, forward it to Others or discuss it with them, or respond privately to an
individual posting to the list. However, there remains a debate about whether
duration is to be desired. Some current thinkers make the point that more is not
necessarily better with regard to use of computer communications (Roszak, 1994;
Stoll, 1995; Talbot, 1995; Gergen, 1991). They imply that close examination of the
impact is in order, since it may shift people's identity (N egroponte, 1995) or reality
(Slouka, 1995). Or like Hudson (1997) they, while not being especially negative, warn
that there are many sides that should be accorded careful scrutiny. Others take a
more optimistic time (N egroponte, 1995; Gates, 1995), while still forecasting shifts in
identity, so that people can become, for example, more "digital". Some recommend
careful restructuring of points of view to accommodate these changes (McLuhan 86
Powers, 1989). In spite of all this discussion, there are few criteria developed for how
much communication in what sort of computer assisted discussion groups might be
Optimum.

It can be assumed that continued participation in a group indicates that the
participants are deriving some benefits, or they wouldn’t continue. Any active group

will require the expenditure of time and effort to handle and respond to the

11

communications. On the Other hand, just as it may not be necessary to continue in
the same university class for several years, continued participation with the same
group, when many groups on different topics are available, may not always be the
most useful, learning oriented behavior. It could possibly point to a degree of
stagnation or inertia about exploring new ideas and topics. In the same way, it can be
debated whether high participation in terms of numerous, frequent, or lengthy
posting of messages is a useful learning behavior, and if so, to what extent.

Some researchers feel that diversity in who posts during any given month is a
positive situation, rather than one that might indicate a problem. These people feel
that this shows that the group is one where a wide variety of people feel free to
participate, and so this situation is a good one in that it displays a wide diversity of
input.

Is more mail better than less mail, or more information better than less?
Similar to the debate on whether it is better to remain in a group for a longer period
of time, is the debate on how much is too much with regard to e-mail and also with
regard to participation. With a large realm of activities possible for any individual,
how much is optimum, as far as participation is concerned? Is the "best" list member
the one who posts the most, or should another criteria be used for determining the

more productive behaviors on e-mail lists?

12

Definitions and Research Related to Frequency, Continuity,
Duration and Content

This section will offer basic definitions of the major research parameters and

discuss Some additional studies that have addressed these areas.

 

DEFINITION OF FREQUENCY

Frequent: Occurring or appearing quite often or at close intervals.
Interval: A space between two objects, points, or units. The amount of time
between two specified instants, events or states.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1992)

Figure 1.1 - Definition of Frequency

 

 

 

Frequency of participation refers to a variety of active behaviors, including all
posting or specific kinds of posting behaviors, and (where known) reading, drinking
about, referring messages to others, responding privately, acting on contents of
messages, and other behaviors associated with being actively involved with the group.
Some of these are readily observable in the list archives. Others would need to be
discovered via interview or survey.

According to Rojo (1995), conditions associated with a high rate of
contribution and adoption included a balanced in and out flow of members, members

who perceive themselves to be receiving a high number of benefits, a high percentage

13

of regular contributors and an active list owner. Rheingold (1993) says that on the

Well, 16% of the people contribute 80% of the words.

Sproull and Kiesler (1991) indicate that participation in electronic groups may
be more useful for those less actively involved, than for those more active members,

but do not consider the impact of differences in frequency of posting for those who

 

are active.
DEFINITION OF CONTINUITY
Continuity: An uninterrupted succession or flow; a coherent whole.
Uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or extent.
Continual: Recurring regularly or frequently. Not interrupted; steady

 

Synonyms: continual, continuous, constant, ceaseless, incessant,
perpetual, perennial, interminable.

These adjectives are compared as they mean occurring over and
over during a long period of time. Continual can connote absence
of interruption but is chiefly restricted to what is intermittent or
repeated at intervals. Continuous implies lack of interruption in
time, substance, or extent Constant stresses steadiness or
persistence of occurrence and unvarying nature. Ceaseless and
incessant pertain to uninterrupted activity. Perpetual emphasizes
both steadiness and duration Perennial describes existence that
goes on year after year, often with the suggestion of self-renewal.
Interminable refers to what is or seems to be endless and is ofien
applied to something prolonged and wearisome.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1992)

Figure 1.2 - Definition of Continuity

 

 

14

This study looks at both the continuity of participation over the months
immediately preceding and immediately following the target month. It also discusses
duration, participation ranging from 6 months to several years from the target month.
It considers questions such as, “Is the communication continual, continuous and
perennial.”

Powers (1997) maintains that stability is key to building virtual communities,
but concentrates mostly on the technical aspects of maintaining access, rather than

the more human ways of promoting continuity and duration of participation.

 

DEFINITION OF DURATION

Duration: Continuance or persistence in time. A period of existence or
persistence.

Persistent: Existing or remaining in the same state for an indefinitely long time;
enduring.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1992)

Figure 1.3 - Definition of Duration

 

 

 

 

Duration, as discussed in some studies of computer mediated communication
groups (Rojo, 1995), refers to the length of time a discussion group member has been
listed as a subscriber to a group, without taking into consideration what level of
participation the subscriber demonstrates. Those who never look at the postings they

receive, those who post rarely, and those who are very active in the group are

15

generally treated the same in many studies of duration. Duration is often determined
by comparing subscriber lists at two different points in time in order to determine
which members of the initial list are still on the final list. This does not take into
account whether the members actually are reading or even receiving messages, as
their subscriptions may be set to “no mail” (a setting which continues the
subscription in theory, without actually sending the participant any mail), never read,
or filtered (automatically redirected by software) into trash (where the messages is
deleted, or set up for deletion).

Duration can also be determined by surveying all or a sample of participants
and asking them how long they have been participants in the list. This method would
be more likely to show empirical errors, since participants may not remember
accurately. It would, however, offer a subjective validity, as time actively participating
might be better remembered. Rojo used this method (Rojo, 1996). Duration can
also be determined based on observable activity on the list, rather than by static
subscriber status.

Researchers differ on methods and standards for determining continuity and
duration of participation. At present there are no established parameters for gauging
continuity and duration across different types of electronic communication mediums.
Initially there is a question about how to distinguish a long-tenn participant from a
more beginning one. In her study of scholarly e-mail groups, Rojo (1996) considered

a new user one who had been subscribed to a group for 0-6 months, an intermediate

16

user, one who had participated for 7-11 months, and an old member one who had
belonged for more than a year. Membership stability was one of the major
dimensions Rojos studied, quantifying participants’ plans to leave e-mail groups, as
well as actual membership length. Rojo offered no specific rationale for the
distinctions she used for beginning, intermediate, and old users though, so it could be
debated that different time frames might have shown different results in term of her

 

findings with regard to them.
DEFINITION OF CONTENT
Content: The subject matter of a written work. The substantive or meaningful

part. The meaning or significance of a literary or artistic work. The
proportion of a specified substance.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1992)

Figure 1.4 - Definition of Content

 

 

 

What do they discuss and how do they discuss it? With several thousand
pages of text generated by EDTECH, the question of content is an essential, yet large
one. Numerous studies attempt to address this question in terms of effect,
interactivity, subject, etc. (Rafaeli, et. al., 1994). In the well known Anmralfiditiongf
Computminfidncation, Hirschbuhl (1994) compiled a large group of articles about

computers in education. Some of the major units included:

17

Role of technology (emphasized philosophy)
Curriculum

Software and Classroom Applications
Teacher training

Multimedia

Virtual reality

Future directions

Though there is some overlap, the actual demonstrated concerns may be
different in an in-person conversation.

As McLuhan (1964) pointed out, content is something that ranges far wider
than the apparent meaning of a single message (selection of text) taken in isolation.
If no one reads it, is there any content? What about if it's in the database and only 3
years later does someone read it? What if 5 people read it, but it’s so long or
Otherwise annoying that 10 Others stop reading everything else on the list because it
was there? What if its redundancy of topic makes people tired of the topic, so they
stop reading other postings? What if the fact that the message, though it says nothing
useful, or even something false, causes Others to join in and send good information.
What if its only impact is the presence of its subject line (and not the actual message
content)?

Winograd and Flores (1987) offer a pOtentially powerful model for going
underneath the surface tOpics and interactions to observe the quality of

communication in tenns of actions and declarations that may have an impact on the

individual and the field as a whole.

18

Research Questions

This study explores several queStions in each of the major areas related to the
EDTECH list and how participants have used it.

Frequency: The research questions for the discussion of frequency are
designed to give an overall understanding of the number of times participants post
and how this looks to a subscriber to the list in terms of proportions of messages that
come from more and less visible participants. This may provide insight into the
amount of interaction professionals have with a relevant online community in their
field. It may also offer some baseline parameters for how students can be taught to
interact with e-mail lists effectively. Since it is possible that frequency of participation
is nor a stable phenomenon, the question is examined at three somewhat separated
points in time.

Research Question 1: How frequently do EDTECH participants post?

Research Question 2: What prOportion of the total list messages come from
different frequency category posters?

Research Question 3: Is this frequency of posting consistent at different points in
time?

Continuity and Duration: The research questions regarding continuity and
duration are designed to investigate if participants who interact with the list continue
to do so over time. By understanding the range of time participants are active in a
list, it may be possible to assess the usefulness of the list to the field. Developers of
new lists may be able to better understand how many of their participants they could

19

expect to hold over time, and the number of new subscribers required to assure
continued aetivity in the group. This study is divided between continuity and
duration. Continuity questions look at participation over the short-term, a month on
either side of the base months of the study. Duration questions consider more long-
terrn participation, looking several years before and after each target month where
possible.

Research Question 4: Over a short range of time, how many of the participants
who post at least once seem to continue posting regularly?

Research Question 5: DO people who post more frequently, also seem to post more
regularly over a short range Of time?

Research Question 6. Over a longer range of time, how many of the participants
who post at least once seem to continue posting regularly?

Research Question 7: Do people who post more frequently also tend to post over a
greater length of time (exhibit greater duration of
participation)?

Content: Quantifying the content in the messages on EDTECH might
enable researchers to see what topics were being discussed by professionals in the
field of educational technology over time, and how these varied. This would allow
cuniculum designers to better create content relevant to students in the field. It
might also Offer insights into the trends and concerns Of professionals, which could
translate into conference topics, publications and avenues for further research. The
content research questions in this study attempt to quantify what was actually

discussed on the list in a way that allows some comparison between different target

20

months, even though specific topics on the list may differ. They also address some

differences seen between higher and lower frequency posters with regard to the

percentage of messages they write which initiate vs. respond to conversations.

Research Question 8: What categories of topics are discussed on an e-mail list on
educational technology?

Research Question 9: Do these categories or the topics that comprise them vary
over time?

Research Question 10: Does the percentage of messages that initiate a topic or

broadcast information differ between different frequency
category of posters?

Organization of the Study

The background for this research into participation in the EDTECH e-mail
discussion group is discussed in the introductory chapter and the relevant research
and writing in the area summarized The methodology used to construct the study is
outlined in greater detail in Chapter 2. Additional detail about the history of the list
and the characteristics of the participants is explained in Chapter 3. The main
analysis chapters of this research are Chapters 4-6 where the frequency, continuity
and duration, and content of the list are described and compared in detail. Then the
main findings are summarized and additional suggestions for research in this area are
offered in Chapter 7.

Chapter 2

METHODOLOGY

In the social sciences, particularly in areas susceptible to human
influence, there is a growing body of thought that says that looking for
certainty about how and why is less effective than interacting with the
phenomena within its own context (Casti, 1990). As Geertz (1997) says,
hindsight accounts offer only pieced-together patterning after the fact. Much
ethnographic research has been concerned with developing theories rather than
testing hypotheses (Hammersley 8: Atkinson, 1983). As Burke (1995)
emphasizes, the major technological advances come from a complex mixture of
insight, accident, circumstance and place that cannot be interpreted or
understood linearly. Thus while striving to give an accurate picture of
EDTECH and how it worked, this study doesn't attempt to offer scientific
exactitude, but rather strives to illustrate and point at trends that may
accommodate further understanding. Its general approach is to try to make the

data more available in this way.

21

22

Approach

A quantitative, descriptive approach was selected for this study, as it deals
with empirical observation of types and numbers of messages posted over the
time and with an aggregate analysis of types of content in those messages. As
Fraenkal 8L Wallen (1993) indicate, for categorical data, descriptive statistics
may be the simplest and most effective way of summarizing available data.

After the data was appropriately reformatted, Observation was made of
the following types of information:

Number of messages total. This involves using available logging
programs on the World Wide Web to total the number of messages in selected
archives. TOtals are generated for different months and years over the span of
the study.

Continuity and duration of participation. This considers how long a
poster in a given month, at various frequencies of posting, tends to continue to
be an active participant in the group.

Number of initial vs. follow-up messages. This requires codifying the
messages as to whether they were an initial message (one meant to start a

conversation thread or offer some sort of new information) or a follow-up

23

message (one replying to a previous question or comment from another
subscriber).

Number of messages by content category. Initial categories are
constructed based on general topics that seemed to draw a fair amount of
commentary. Messages referring to specific technologies and educational
techniques are identified, and trends over time quantified and discussed. The
study identifies through analysis, categories and typologies that may be useful in
further research.

Number of messages by poster, total and in various categories. Just
as the content of messages is important, observation of the behavior of
individual posters can also be expected to illuminate much about how useful
participation is and what patterns of participation can be observed. All
messages posted are signed with the full name and e-mail address of the poster,
and logging programs in use sort on this information. This information is
quantified in the report without identifying any individual posting.

Number of messages by gender total. Though gender information is
not always available, in most cases it can be discerned from the signature of the
message, since messages are posted including full name. As there is an ongoing
discussion in the area of educational technology about how and why the

different genders use technology in the ways that they do, patterns of use

24

among representatives of the two genders can indicate whether participants in a
professional list in the area of educational technology seem to be representative
of general research and demographic data about the Internet. Their patterns of
usage may also offer additional insights into the characteristics and possible

causes of any differences from Other populations that have been researched.

Archived Materials

This study concentrates on using the archives of the EDTECH e-mail
network, which have been available to the public since the EDTECH list began
in 1989. These are extensive archives, containing thousands of individual
messages. Though there were fewer messages in the first few years, in the 6
month period from March through August of 1996, 4756 individual messages
were posted and archived to EDTECH, a monthly average of 793 messages.
These came from 3,423 direct subscribers (as of September 1996) and an
additional approximately 8,000-10,000 readers via Usenet News, other
electronic bulletin boards and World Wide Web archives. All messages used
have been available to anyone in the public in various electronic formats, such
as: on the Internet in archives of the Listserv, via World Wide Web pages and
search engines, on archival CD’s of Usenet News, and in other data storage

locations.

25

Most e-mail groups operate by individuals subscribing or adding their
name to a distribution list maintained by a piece of software called a Listserv or
Listserver (or at times, in the case of similar alternate software, Listproc,
Majordomo, etc.). Individuals send or post their messages to the Listserv and it
sends them on to everyone who has subscribed to the liSt. In general the
Listserv also archives, or keeps a log of all messages distributed by week or
month. Anyone who can subscribe to the list can also order a copy of any of
the message logs from the Listserv software. If one orders an archive, using
standard Listserv commands, one receives a file in the mail containing a copy of
every message posted during the time frame of the archive. This log contains
the name and e-mail address of the original poster, the subject and complete text
of the posting, and the date and time it was originally distributed.

In addition, some email lists, including the EDTECH list, automatically
post all messages to Usenet News, a very large international bulletin board
system used by millions of people. The Usenet News version of EDTECH is
called bit.listserv.edtech and has been available to anyone since 1989. It carries
all EDTECH messages. The length of time that these messages are readily
available varies by site from a few days to a year or more, but several
organizations have archived all Usenet News messages to CD’s or Other types of

electronic archives. The DejasNews WWW archiving site makes them available

26

via the World Wide Web for 2-3 years, with plans to add older messages,
currently archived on CD’s or tape, available in the future.

Many email lists now include their archived logs on the World Wide
Web at their own sites as well. EDTECH has also adOpted this pracrice during
recent years, so that anyone can visit the EDTECH WWW site at
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/ ~ edweb and read the contents of any message

(from an extant log) that was pOSted to EDTECH.

Generation of Descriptive Statistics

A very important component of this research is the creation of a rich,
detailed, and understandable description of the overall way a professional
electronic mail list functions. To achieve the goals of this study, preliminary
counts are made of messages in the various categories listed above, over different
periods of time. Appropriate tabular and graphic displays are created which
illustrate the differences in these numbers during the various time periods for
which they were encoded. More finely differentiated displays are generated as
needed for any data categories that seem to show potential differences during a
single time period or changes over time.

There are several constraints to randomness of taking samples of

messages, including the need to see every message over spans of time, in order to

27

quantify messages within subjects or frequency of posting by an individual.
Some months of data were corrupted or lost and are not available to the
researcher on W sites at present. Holidays, vacations, substitute editors
and Other factors may skew results if data from certain time periods is used.
These issues will be allowed for in the various data analyses, in order to increase

statistical validity of results as much as possible.

Ethical Issues

The issue of whether publicly available e—mail messages are an available
database that researchers can freely use has been debated extensively in academic
circles. The participants in ProjectH debated this issue among a large number
of researchers (Rafaeli, et. al., 1994). Some researchers felt that such messages,
since anyone can find and read them very quickly and easily using a variety of
search engines on the W or by sending relatively easy commands to the
Listserv software, should be considered entirely public, and all information
therein considered available for full use in research. Other scholars in the
ProjectH group doing research in this area have maintained that liSt archives
should be treated similar to newspapers or other published documents.
However, some felt that, since a naive poster may not have understood that the

content of his/ her messages would be available to anyone for an indefinite

28

period of time or anticipate that these messages might be studied, some
safeguards need to be taken in terms of citing individuals when conducting
research on archival materials. (Sudweeks 8C Rafaeli, 1997)

In the case of EDTECH, all subscribers were told upon subscribing, and
periodically via e-mail reminders, that EDTECH logs are available to anyone,
both at the EDTECH Listserv site and via various other sites such as the
AskERIC gopher archives. Those posting via Usenet News, given its
completely public nature, would know that their messages were being
disseminated in a public environment. With the creation of the WWW site,
subscribers were further informed that archives were also available to anyone
on the WWW.

To help protect any individual who may not have anticipated the public
availability and longevity of messages posted at some time from 1989 to the
present, this study only used aggregate data, not identifying any individual
poster by name or full email address, and summarizing messages needed to
illustrate or identify categories of content. For the majority of the study, the
archives of the EDTECH list at various points in time between February of
1989 and January of 1997 were used. To avoid unduly influencing the results,
message content was not to be analyzed for messages posted after the beginning

of the study.

29

Though these messages are readily available to anyone with Internet e-
mail or W access, in most cases the data is not formatted for ease of use or
analysis. For purposes of this study, it needed to be reformatted to conform
with the requirements of current logging, database and analysis programs.
Missing or inaccurate subject lines were corrected. The same person sometimes
posted under different variations of his/ her name or e-mail address. To assist in

database analysis, these variations were made uniform.

Standards for Measurement of Frequency, Continuity and
Duration

This study tracks frequency, continuity and duration of active
participation in a variety of ways in order to establish additional parameters and
useful measures to employ in determining statistics for ongoing and long-term
lists. In what time spans do we consider it important that a person post, or send
additional messages, in order to be considered an active member of the group?
As the discussion and charts show, when a longer span of time is considered, the
evidence of duration decreased from what is shown by counting repeated
postings by the same individual over a shorter span. By comparing differences

in continuity and duration shown by calculating this variable in various ways

 

 

30

and over various time spans, this study will Offer insights into optimum time
frames and other methods of approaching longevity/ frequency of participation.

The focus of this study is on empirical data such as counts and cross-
matching of categories of postings and posters. It does not demonstrate cause,
but only describes variation in observable behaviors. Many of the comparisons
made here point only at aggregate numbers of messages without distinguishing
their type. Others attempt to focus more narrowly on specific types of
messages that may be more indicative of learning and educational interactions.
Research on factors that predict the frequency with which someone will use e-
mail indicates that there are a number Of predictors that should be taken into
account if considering background related to frequency and type of use. In her
research Choi (1996) found that when asked if access to e-mail was for them
very easy, easy, neutral, difficult or very difficult, those who reported easier
access also showed a tendency to post a greater number of messages. Prior
learning about how to do e-mail did nOt predict amount of e-mail sent. Choi’s
study often focuses on a particular type of communication that she termed
collaborative, rather than on general e-mail use. Support in terms of class
assignments and available technical support did predict additional collaborative
use, though access did not seem to impact this number. Choi defines

collaborative use as:

31

Use of email systems for communicating and interacting between
and among students, faculty and Others, to learn a particular idea
or skill or to accomplish a particular learning task. (p. 40)

Choi states that other purposes of e-mail use include “use of email

systems for reading, finding or searching for information”. (p. 40)

Use of Visual Displays

A variety Of graphic/ visual displays are utilized to make data as easily
accessible as possible to those studying elecrronic mail discussion groups and to
illustrate summaries of data in ways that may make implications more clear. As
Tufte (1983, 1990, 1997) claims in his pivotal studies of graphical displays,
graphics can go beyond representation to become tools to aid thinking and
bring about fuller understanding of data. In general, results are displayed in
both tabular and visual (graphical) form in order to facilitate understanding and
comparison of data in as many ways as possible.

The analysis of electronic conferencing groups in field rather than
laboratory conditions presents some serious problems for a researcher who
wishes for any external validity to a study because conditions and influencing
factors are changing so rapidly in the late 1990‘s. Most Observations will

probably not of themselves remain useful for any length of time, as conditions

 

 

32

will change and influencing factors will intervene to undermine some parts of
the observations quite quickly after it is made.

Since this study attempts to provide a picture of a time, people and a
method of interaction, many of the results will be displayed visually.
Computer mediated communication and education methodologies may recur
across technologies, in an age of multimedia, avatars, three dimensions, etc. If
appropriate patterns can be developed, it is possible that they can be
superimposed on non-identical but related communications methods and
technologies to promote increased understanding and point at possible avenues

for influencing the directions and outcomes of the interaction.

Description of Base Month Frequency, Continuity and
Duration Parameters

Though this study looks at continuity and duration over a number of
time frames, it focuses primarily on two designated months, and then develops
Other comparative time frames or focal points after analyzing this central data.
The advantages of a time-based samfling period are that similar periods across a
period of years can be easily surveyed. Seasonal variations in participation
across several years can be discounted when a similar time period in terms of the

season and its relation to the academic/ school year are controlled. Archiving

33

components of the Listserv software log messages by the month, in whole
month segments, or in four one-week and one partial-week segments. It could
be argued that a message based approach would be superior, where randomly
selected messages or blocks of a predetermined number of messages would be
studied, regardless of the length of time it took for these messages to be pOSted.
Though these might also yield interesting information, this study concentrates
on what can be Observed by looking at samples of one of the more common
time-based groupings of archival messages. This study also attempts to provide
further insights about the differences in results that might be achieved by

varying the methods of calculating the base period in such longevity studies.

General Structure

Following this survey of methodology, the background and history of
EDTECH are discussed to provide context. Then frequency of participation,
followed by continuity and duration are discussed in detail. Finally the content
covered by the participants studied in the earlier chapters is categorized and
compared. The Appendices contain samples of coding instructions used for
some analyses and further information about the structure and editing of the list

taken from its WWW site.

Chapter 3

HISTORY, DESCRIPTION AND
CHARACTERISTICS OF EDTECH PARTICIPANTS

   

Purpose of EDTECH: To promote discussions among faculty, students, and
" interested Others" in the field of educational technology about hardware,
software, curriculums, 85 technology in education, and to study the
development of EDTECH itself as a vehicle for extending traditional

learning environments through telecommunications. (Banks 8: Rosenberg,
1989)

   
     
 
    

Figure 3.1 - Purpose of EDTECH

History and Tirneline

On February 10, 1989 a group of graduate students and faculty at Michigan
State University (MSU) started the Educational Technology Internet mailing list
EDTECH. Participants of the CEP931 advanced graduate seminar in educational
technology had been studying electronic mail and conferencing, and decided it would
be worthwhile to expand the discussion to include professionals and researchers on
educational technology from around the world. The group used the Internet and
available resources to research the procedure for starting a list, formulated a purpose
and created the documents required to set it up. With the help and encouragement of

Professor Joe Byers, they formed EDTECH, thinking that perhaps someday two or

three hundred pe0ple might become involved in a useful exchange on research into
educational technology.

34

35

Initially the new EDTECH list was announced on other mailing lists and the
N ew-List list, and promoted at several education conferences. A hard copy
announcement was sent to all university departments that listed an Educational
Technology program in AECT's 1988 Educational Technology Yearbook The list
was initially hosted by Ohio State University, which ran a major Listserv and was
willing to host academic lists at no charge (Michigan State University, where the
group involved with running and moderating the list was located, charged for disk
space and related list costs.) Since Listserv then ran on BITNET, the initial address
for EDTECH was EDTECH@OHSTVMA or EDTECH@OHS'IVMA.BITNET.
The First Months of EDTECH
Since a graduate class was studying EDTECH, more careful documentation
was kept of events and milestones on the list during the first few months of its
existence. Updates were regularly sent to the list and archived. This allowed a fairly
extensive chronicle of early events to be compiled Many of these early events are
summarized here to provide an additional point of contrast with the main months of
the study and to offer an account of the first months of a list for other researchers.
During its first week (February 10-17, 1989) subscriptions to EDTECH were
moderate (10 or 11) mosrly from Michigan State University (MSU) students, alumni
and contacts. By the end of February there were approximately 17 people
subscribed, 12 from MSU. During February there were 6 messages (.3 per day) sent

 

 

36

to the EDTECH list. 100% of the traffic originated from MSU. The content of the
messages was personal introductions and administrative access questions.

In March 1989, subscriptions and messages to the EDTECH list started to
pick up significantly, nearing 100 subscribers by the end of the month. By 1997
standards, when a thousand or more subscribers Often sign on to a new e-mail lisr
during the first week, subscriptions were not impressive, but the rate was rapid by
1989 standards. Fifty-six messages (1.8 per day) were sent to EDTECH during its
first full calendar month. Forty-three percent of list traffic originated from people at
Michigan State University. Topics in March 1989 ranged from conference
announcements to requests for information, references, and resources, but personal
introductions continued to account for a substantial amount of the traffic flow.
About 13% were not-relevant mail (commands, personal messages, etc). Banks
(1989d) suggested to the list that the end of this month was a turning point, as groups
of over 100 might be more able than smaller ones to offer a comprehensive resource

base for trouble-shooting more obscure problems. An analysis of t0pics was

published by Banks (1989c) in early April, 1989 and is summarized in Figure 3.2.

 

 

37

 

 

March 1989 Topics on EDTECH

Topic Number of Postings
Personal Introductions 10
Competition in Education
Video games
Reading group
ADCIS
ICTE
Telecommunications
CAI
Interesting references
Software, interactive video, classes on Bitnet
DISTED Journal
EDTECH Questionaire
Misc.

List maintenance

 

 

 

 

 

\OC’JHHHNNNuwuwu

 

Figure 3.2 - March 1989 Topics on EDTECH

 

 

During April 1989 there were 82 messages (27/ day) with 29% of the traffic
from MSU. EDTECH had 130 subscribers at the end of April. In April 1989 there
was a substantial increase in off-topic or inappropriate messages. This was a concern
for the graduate group, who preferred not to host a group with significant "noise"
content. After a survey and some debate (summarized in Banks, 1989b) with those
who preferred completely unrestricted and uncensored posting, the group decided to
begin moderating EDTECH. After April 23, 1989 all EDTECH messages passed by
a list moderator or editor before being posted to the EDTECH subscribers. This

means that instead of messages being distributed immediately to everyone on

 

 

38

EDTECH, when posted they are first forwarded to the list moderator, who intercepts
and redirects private mail and command messages.

In late April, shortly after the change to moderating the list, a shift in the
content and style of the list occurred. Until then most EDTECH messages dealt with
personal introductions, a specific question and answer, a conference announcement,
or mistakes (mail not meant for list distribution). There were no extended
conversations on particular topics. On April 25, 1989 a question posted about screen
capture for instructional purposes and related copyright questions started the list on
its first extended interaction. During the last few days of April and the first several
days of May there were 16 messages from 7 different members revolving around the
copyright issue. Some were questions and answers, some contained references, and
on others were speculation on possible scenarios. Figure 3.3 summarizes the April
1989 postings according to information sent to the list in May of that year. (Banks,

1989c)

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

April 1989 Topics on EDTECH
Topics Number of Postings
Copyright law 9
Instructional design 3
Personal introductions 4
Voice activated systems 1
Conferences 3
Interactive video 2
Textbooks 1
Benefits (or not) of educational technology 6
Teaching techniques 3
Distance education 5
Intelligent tutoring systems 3
Software 3
Journals 5
Alaska 1
Articles index 1
Costs of maintenance 2
EDTECH maintenance 13
Misdirected mail sent to list 17
Figure 3.3 - April 1989 EDTECH Topics

 

 

 

In May 1989 discussion continued to expand. It evolved to encompass
broader and more theoretical themes like preparing teachers to use technology, and
OLD technology (books and chalkboards) vs. NEW technology (hypertext and
computers). These are themes that were to be repeated on EDTECH throughout its
existence. People continued introducing themselves and their work, and sharing
references and articles with each other, but EDTECH also became a forum for

extended conversations among groups of people on diffemt topics. It offered an

4o

informal conversational environment that fostered participation, networking, and
relationships. At the end of May 1989 EDTECH had grown to 183 members from
90 institutions and 15 different countries. During May there were 97 messages sent to
the EDTECH list and 13 additional messages handled or redirected by the
Moderator. This tOtaled over three per day with only 18% originating from MSU.
Contributions to EDTECH in May 1989 came from 45 different subscribers, 25% of
the total number of people subscribed to the list. The May 1989 messages were in

the categories detailed in Figure 3.4.

41

 

 

 

Number of
May 1989 Topics on EDTECH Messages in
Topic Thread
Introducing technology to teachers 28
Hypertext/hypermedia 16
Introducing technology into classrooms 13
Special education and technology 8
Copyright issues 6
Structure Of school systems in various countries 5
Using EDTECH and BI'INET services 5
State of American education 4
Measuring discovery learning 3
Distance le ° 2
Educational technology in medicine list 1
Trends in school computer purchases 1
Grant announcement 1
General references 1
Computer based training 1
Graduate school programs 1
Cornserve 1

 

 

 

Figure 3.4 - May 1989 Topics Discussed on EDTECH

 

 

 

The First Five Years
After the end of the 1989 academic year, less careful records were kept on

EDTECH, though a yearly summary was usually sent in January or February of each
year to subscribers. The yearly increases in subscriptions are summarized in Figure
3.5. Between June 1989 and Febniary 1994 subscriptions expanded from about 200

to 1658 subscriptions from 30 different countries by February 10, 1994, EDTECH‘s

fifth anniversary.

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Number of EDTECH Subscribers

Date Subscribers Countries
February 10, 1989 o 0

Jan. 1,1990 353 15
Jan.4,l99l 565 22

Feb 7,1992 905 22

Feb 10,1993 1290 28
Feb.lO,l994 1628 30
Feb.lO,l995 2315 37
Feb.lO,l996 3229 44
Feb.lO,l997 3472 49

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.5 - Number of EDTECH Subscribers

 

 

 

In spring of 1993 after manyyears of running on the Ohio State University
OHSTVMA listserver, EDTECH moved to MSU when OSHTVMA stopped
offering the listserver service. An agreement was made with the College of Education
at MSU to handle costs of maintaining the list archives for EDTECH at MSU for the
most recent months. References to EDTECH@OHSTVMA could still be found for
several years after the list was moved, and some cites to EDTECH messages still
refer to the Ohio State location; however as of early summer of 1993, EDTECH
officially became EDTECH@MSU or EDTECH@MSU.BITNET.

In 1993, EDTECH's archives became more readily available when the
AskERIC service began carrying EDTECH postings and archives and making them
available over Gopher. This was a significant step forward in terms of access, since
educators could expect to be able to refer back to and use EDTECH materials over a

longer term.

 

 

43

Years Six through Eight
Between 1994 and 1997 there was another significant leap in EDTECH

subscriptions and message traffic. Subscriptions went from 1628 in early 1994 to
3472 subscribers from over 50 countries by early 1997. There were over 650 new
subscribers during 1994 alone, with subscribers on EDTECH coming from over 37
countries.

In 1994 Michigan State University changed from Bitnet to Intemet-only, so in
early summer 1994 EDTECH's address became EDTECH@MSU.EDU.

Activity to increase access also expanded with the opening of the EDTECH
WWW archive site on the H-NET Humanities Online WWW server on February 10,
1996 at: http://h-net.msu.edu/~ edweb

The archives began with a few months in 1995 and 1996 and eventually
expanded to include all EDTECH archives still extant. At first the program
Hypermail was used to convert the logs into HTML, and later a WWW database
program owned by H-NET. The messages could be sorted by date, thread, subject
and author, and searched by keyword. (See Appendix B for copies of selected pages
from the site.) According to H-NET statistics, by May of 1997 the site was receiving
over 2000 visits per week. During this period the WWW based Dejanews service also
began archiving all EDTECH messages from the bit.listserv.edtech news feed, and

provided an additional way for others to access the messages.

44

Summary of Number of Postings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#1:? e . Al" wann inlAug 55513,?“ N98
1989 6 52 81 "35 77 128

1990 61 57 112 71 68 68 77

1991 104 120138 129 55 105 55 154 211 186

1992 118 164175 208 218 184184 227 214 306 275 293 213.8

1993 209 315 285 362 303 428 357 478 342.1

1994 515 580 569 313 544 811 732 419 560.4

1995 7621072 653 536 517 516 672 706 696 616 674.6

1996 765 9721153 598 975 627 591 847 767 841 895 530 796.8

1997 1168 9081372 1119 1017 1116.8

 

 

 

Figure 3.6 - EDTECH Postings by Month

 

 

 

Figure 3.6 summarizes posting information about EDTECH that still exists.
Over time a number of monthly archives were lost or corrupted due to technical
problems. Averages are calculated on available totals. Since February 1989 was only
a partial month, it was omitted. The archiving program at the H-NET WWW site is
not accurate as it tries to count of the number of messages in the month, often
incrementing the tOtal extra in response to forwarded message or formatting in the
body of a message that is similar to the top of a new message. These general totals
are meant for reference and not precise statistical analysis, which should be done on
verified counts of any months to be studied. Key monthly logs for this study were

counted individually to increase accuracy.

45

People Involved in Moderating and Managing EDTECH
The main and usually only editor of EDTECH between 1989 and 1997 was

Vickie Banks. This led to a consistency in formatting and style of editing messages
sent and rejected. Mark Rosenberg and other members of CEP 931 helped set up the
list during the first few months and establish its operating parameters and general
direction. They mostly ceased work on the list after the course was over. During
vacations there were often substitute editors. Marilyn Everingharn handled the list
for a few weeks in the summer of 1990 and conducted independent research on it.
Mary Garrett moderated for a period of time in the summer of 1991. Wayne Cooley
moderated during winter break 1991. Gary LaPointe, Mary Garrett, Mauri Collins,

and Zane Berge were guest editors for periods of time in 1992. Noel Estebrook and

Mark Coleman helped moderate during parts of 1993.

Sponsors and Technical Support
The Michigan State University College of Education and Department of

Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education at Michigan State
University sponsored EDTECH from its inception by providing e-mail accounts,
listserv storage space and necessary approvals to run an e-mail list of this size.

In 1995 EDTECH became affiliated with H-NET Humanities Online
(http://www.h-net.msu.edu) which has been Offering much needed assistance to
EDTECH in handling its volume and developing its WWW site.

46

During 1898-1993 Ohio State University handled the listserver for the
EDTECH. On almost a daily basis Duane Weaver, the postmaster helped
troubleshoot EDTECH problems. After the move to MSU, the Michigan State
University Computer Laboratory provided a great amount of technical support,
mainly through Listserv postmaster Dennis Boone and later Margaret King. Dennis
Boone was also instrumental in maintaining the gopher archiving function of
EDTECH while it existed at Michigan State University. Since EDTECH affiliated
with H-NET Humanities Online, it had an errors editor during peak periods to help

handle several thousand bounced messages a week.

Where does EDTECH appear?
Exerpts from EDTECH frequently appear in other online publications. Also

Small groups of faculty at universities form list networks, with each member
subscribing to a couple of lists and forwarding the best stuff on to the others in the

mini-net. EDTECH is also carried on Dejanews, AskEric and Usenet News as

bitlistserv.edtech.

Topics Generally Not Discussed on EDTECH
EDTECH welcomed thoughtful discussion, questions and cross-postings

about the uses of various technologies and instructional designs in education.

Messages at all levels of expertise quite were accepted.

 

for what would and would not be forwarded to the liSt.

The 1992 anniversary letter indicated that among unacceptable postings were:

0 Things not related to Educational technology. There are many very

important issues, but then there are many other lists that discuss them too.

0 Duplicates--The same information answering a question a couple of times

were perhaps sent on. But if several people write in giving the same
response, after awhile these were not forwarded.

0 Very long postings-prefer not over 200, definitely not over 500 lines.

0 Commercial sounding messages.

BIINET rules were cited in early restrictions. "BITNET doesn't allow
advertising over the network. Making a product recommendation is helpful. If it
begins to sound like a commercial ad however for something you're selling however,
we can't send it on."

EDTECH doesn't accept—personal messages for individuals, spams, flames,
commercial advertisements, requests for reposting of recent messages you deleted,
postings that have nothing to do with educational technology, messages over 500
lines long (usually-please summarize), messages in languages other than English with
no translation provided, encoded files and/ or programs, and other messages that
wouldn't contribute to the quality of the general discussion. (Editor, 1995)

48

These basic policies were further elaborated on the EDTECH WWW site and
in the Editor's Style Guide (see Appendix B).

Classes on EDTECH
Since early in its history, EDTECH has been used by university classes as a

part of their curriculum. As early as 1992, the moderator noted that over 100
subscribers (EDTECH Editor, Feb. 7, 1992) had come in a class from the University
of Missouri. EDTECH endorsed and encouraged class participation, but asked
professors to introduce themselves and instruct their students on how and what to
post and also how to sign off at the end of their class. This was frequently not done,
so some student postings couldn't be accepted since they were inappropriate for
EDTECH. Several editor communications to the list discuss problems with class

subscriptions.

49

Geographical Distribution of Subscribers

Detailed information of geographical distribution of subscribers was not

preserved over most of the span of EDTECH’s existence. It is available for each of

the last two years of the Study though via reports from Listserv that were kept, and

these are summarized in Figures 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 below. Figure 3.7 gives an overview

by area, and Figures 3.8 and 3.9 break this down into statistics for individual countries

during each year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subscribers by Area
EDTECH Feb. 1, 1997
Europe (including
United States 2512 Scandinavia, Iceland 82
and Eastern EurOpe)
(1 Africa, Middle East and

cm a 322 Turkey 29

Australia, New Zealand & 99 South America 23
Pac1fic

Asia (includes India, Japan, Mexico & Central 8

Korea, Thailand) 35 America
Unknown 346

 

 

Figure 3.7 - Subscribers by Area, February 1, 1997

 

 

 

 

50

 

4 .. “van a.

 

 

 

 

Country Subscribers Country Subscribers
Argentina 1 Italy 6
Australia 48 Japan 4
Austria 1 Korea 2
Belgium 3 Malaysia 2
Belize 1 Mexico 13
Brazil 16 Netherlands 6
Canada 358 New Zealand 19
Colombia 4 Norway 3
Czech Republic 2 Poland 2
Ecuador 2 Portugal 2
Fiji 1 Saudi-Arabia 3
Finland 1 1 Singapore 5
France 3 South Africa 17
Germany 4 Soviet Union 1
Great Britain 24 Spain 6
Greece 3 Switzerland 1
Ho o 7 Taiwan 3
H ngk Hg 1 Thailand 5
Iceland 3 Turkey 2
India 3 United Arab Emirates 1
Indonesia 2 USA 2431
Israel 4 Venezuela 1
Unknown 179
Total Subscribers 3229 Total Countries 44

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.8 - Geographical Distribution of EDTECH Subscribers, Feb. 1996

 

 

 

51

In 1997 72% of subscribers were from USA and 9% from Canada.

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t g - 9 a. g '. ”494839.44. "
Country Subscribers Country Subscribers
Argentina 1 Italy 7
Australia 73 Japan 8
Austria 2 Korea 1
Belgium 5 Lithuania 1
Belize 1 Malaysia 4
Brazil 18 Mexico 7
Canada 322 Morocco 1
Colombia 1 Netheriands 7
Cyprus 1 New Zealand 20
Czech Republic 3 Norway 5
Denmark 1 Poland 2
Ecuador 2 Portugal 3
Egypt 1 Saudi-Arabia 4
Fiji 1 Singapore 4
Finland 6 South Africa 14
France 2 Soviet Union 1
Germany 4 Spain 4
Great Britain 18 Switzerland 1
Greece 6 Taiwan 4
Hongkong 8 Thailand 5
Hungary 1 Turkey 2
Iceland 1 United Arab Emirates 2
India 2 USA 2512
Indonesia 5 Venezuela 1
Israel 6 Unknown 346
Total Subscribers 347 2 Total Countries 49

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.9 - Geographical Distribution, February 1, 1997

 

 

52

Gender of EDTECH Participants
The study of gender in an online community like EDTECH could generate

many additional research projects, as it is a multifaceted field. For purposes of this
study, a simple comparison of the apparent gender of the participants posting during
the two main base months was calculated, in order to get a general gender
distribution and an indicator of any apparent trends toward change. As many names
are not gender-specific, and surveys were not used in this study, the category
unknown was included in Figure 3.10, to account for the people whose gender was
not Obvious from their name. Of course, the information obtained could be less than
perfectly accurate, since some people may use a name that appears to be that of
someone of the opposite gender. It is hoped, however, that this information will
assist those who are interested in doing additional work in the area of gender and

online activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDTECH Gender Comparison
November 1992 vs. November 1995
Male Female Unknown Total
1992 105 25 9 139
0/6 76% 18% 6%
1995 272 112 9 393
0/o 69.2% 28.5% 2.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.10 - Gender Comparison 1992 vs. 1995

 

 

 

 

 

Male vs. Female Posters—EDTECH
All Postings — Nov. 1992

Unknown
6%

Female
18%

Male
76%

 

 

 

 

Male vs. Female Posters-EDTECH
All Postings -- Nov. 1995

Unknown
2%

Female
28%

   

Male
70%

Figure 3.11 - Gender Comparison Charts

 

 

54

Summary

EDTECH has exhibited steady growth in terms of subscribers and numbers
of postings since its inception in 1989. Though concentrated in the United States and
Canada, it has a widely international constituency. As was typical of the Internet
during the period of this study, there appear to be many more male than female
participants, but this disparity shows signs of gradually lessening in the period
between 1992 and 1995. Though mainly managed by a single moderator during most
of its existence, EDTECH was nevertheless a cooperative venture of a number of
people, including technical staff, assistant moderators, sponsors and the many people
who posted the messages.

The preceding description provides a background for interpreting the

following portions of this study, which consider in depth the posting and
participation characteristics of the subscribers and the content of the messages they

posted during different periods in EDTECH's existence.

Chapter 4

FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION

Overview

In order to investigate the question of whether the frequency with which
participants post at different points in time is consistent, the frequency of posting
during three distinct months of EDTECH is described in this chapter. These
months are then compared to establish any recognizable patterns with regard to

frequency of posting. In Figure 4.1 the general structure of the chapter is

diagrarnmed.

 

General Organization of Frequency Chapter

 

l Selection 8.
" Analysis of
Base Months

 

 

 

 

1T Nov. 1992 ’

   
     

f Nov.1995 I j Nov.1996

Comparisons

  

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 - Overview of Frequency Chapter

55

56

In this chapter the selection of base months and frequency categories is
discussed first. It then goes on to show frequency detail about each base month and
concludes by comparing the data for each month to see if any consistent pattern
appears to emerge. Finally it provides suggestions for further study.

Frequency on EDTECH is defined by the number of postings made by a
given participant or designated group of participants within a specified time frame.
(See Chapter 1 for a more detailed discussion of the factors involved in determining
frequency. Frequency categories must first be established to determine how to
organize observations of continuity and duration.) Frequency of participation
establishes the condition into which continuity and duration of participation can be
studied, since continuity and duration may vary across different frequency categories
of participants. In other words, people who post more frequently may also tend to
post more regularly or over greater periods of time. They may also provide different
content in their messages from less frequent posters. In order to investigate these
hypotheses, frequency must first be carefully examined for selected time periods.

Understanding frequency is important because it is advantageous to know
how often and in what quantity any given person should participate to achieve
maximum learning goals in a group. Active posting behaviors are not strictly
necessary to benefit from belonging to a discussion group. It is often noted that
online groups have "lurkers," who may never make a public comment, but who
nevertheless gain new information by reading the messages of others. Though not

essential to benefiting from a group, active participation is an activity that enhances

57

learning, and one that can be observed. This study will concentrate on the active
participants who create and respond to message threads. Though it does n0t imply
that the only benefits accrue to these active participants, since their participation is
the only visible part of the group dynamic, it does assume that they obtain an

essential core of the possible results and set the tone and tempo of what Others gain.

Selection and Analysis of Base Months

November 1992, November 1995 and November 1996 were chosen as base
months to analyze for frequency for a variety of reasons. In general this study focuses
on November 1992, November 1995 and months in immediately before and after
them. Chapter 4 continues to emphasize these months, while widening the
comparison by adding November 1996 to offer further information on whether
trends continue to be maintained after November 1995. Since the characteristics of
the Internet itself and the way people use it are quickly transforming in the 1990’s due
to the rapid increase in the number of people using the Internet and the alterations in
available technologies, it seemed best to include a more recent month in the initial
frequency analysis, contrasting it with earlier ones in the study to avoid conclusions
possibly based only on a difference between 1992 and 1995, and not a difference that
would be seen in any other comparison. Figure 4.2 shows the comparative number of

postings in each of the base months.

58

 

 

Number of EDTECH Postings
in Nov. 1992, 1995 & 1996

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

Number of
Messages Posted

 

1992 1995 1996

Figure 4.2 - Number of Postings in 3 Base Months

There is substantial variability in the month-by-month numbers of messages
posted to EDTECH over a year span, due to the influence of academic year, season,
editor vacations and other factors. Novembers of the respective years were used,
rather than randomly selecting base months, because it was thought that the same
month in different years would provide the best comparison. The end of December
and early January are often vacation weeks for EDTECH and so would not be

sufficiently typical to use as base months. As the charts in Chapter 3 show, June

59
through September tend to be transitional months, with many universities on
vacation, and participation in the list more variable then than during the main
winter/ spring and fall months. November 1996 was the latest possible month to use
before the January 1997 end date of the study. 50, it was decided to use the
respective Novembers to make this initial comparison.

As Figure 4.3 shows, as well as a difference in volume over time, there was a
concurrent shift in the number of EDTECH posters between 1992 and 1995.
November 1992 was before the very evident increase in subscribers about 1994.
Though only three years earlier, it is derived from a different era on the Internet and

on EDTECH than the later years show.

 

N umber—07 EDTECH Posters
in Nov. 1992, 1995 & 1996

l 450
g0 400
h '13 350
2 E. g; 300 .
3 .3 g0 250 ._ “
g 3% 200
z '5 E 150
E 100
,3: so

 

l
l 1992 1995 1996 ,l
l

 

Figure 4.3 - Number of EDTECH Posters

 

60
Though the WW software was released to the public in 1992, it did not

penetrate into common usage in K- 12 and university education until 1993 or later,
after graphical browsers were introduced. The Internet was nor yet open to
commercial users in 1992 when there were less than 2 million host computers
connected. It was a dramatically different environment than in 1995, when there were
6 million host computers connected, or the end of 1996, when this number had
grown to about 15 million. The explosion in W sites was even more dramatic,
with essentially none in 1992 (a few experimental sites), expanding to nearly 100,000
by November of 1995, and about 525,000 in November of 1996. (Zakon, 1997).
After 1992, the influence over time of the WWW began to gradually be felt on the
Internet and may have begun to influence the content and patterns of activity on

EDTECH.

Frequency Categories

From each base month, the number of different individual participants
posting was determined. (See coding sheet A in Appendix A.) In this Chapter, base
months are discussed individually, in order to allow greater detail, and focus on the
individual characteristics. After this initial analysis, they are also discussed as a
comparative grouping of 3 months.

To study frequency, during each base month all messages included in any of
the 5 weekly November EDTECH archive logs were used. They consisted of follow-

up’s to message threads begun in previous months and new topics with their follow-

61

up messages, as long as the responses were also posted in November of the
respective years. Initially the number of times each participant posted was calculated
and categories were created according to quantity of postings. Though there were
concentrations of postings at lower numbers, many of the higher numbers of
postings had only a single participant in the category and were handled in aggregate
groups for purposes of analysis. Someone who posts 15 times may not vary in a
significant, practical manner from someone who posts 16 times, especiallyif there is
only one of each in a given month. It is unclear whether people posting two times
are materially different from those posting 3 times, especially given uncertainties of
the Internet and moderated email lists in general. Mail may get lost or never be
posted, so that some who are recorded as only posting 2 times may actually have sent
in three or more possible postings. Other factors may intervene to blur distinctions
between similar categories of multiple posters, so only categories which included a

substantial number of posters were individually discussed.

November 1992 Frequency

This section will look at the early November 1992 base month in some detail,
in order to provide a comprehensive basis for comparison. In November 1992 there
were 275 messages posted by 138 participants to the EDTECH conference. As with
the other base months, the November 1992 messages were sorted by participant
name and counts were made (see Appendix A, Coding Sheet B) of the gross number
of postings made by each participant. These totals are summarized in Figure 4.4.

 

62

 

 

1:)» iv“; iii—7., ii I I» - . AM§§;~.-’F~fr-’f: "Vw- - '. U
.“';_‘=..l’lr<ic(a~r:-, ' tum: r‘rl’uerrraic
e‘“ :7 ".1“ ' iris. Ti":

EDTECH November 1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of Messages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 42 Total
Posted

List Members 93 18 18 1 2 1 2 2 l 138 I
% °f Li“ , 67.4 13 13 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.7 100

Members Posting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Many Times Did Each Member Post?
EDTECH November 1992

 

Number of List Members Posting

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 42
Total Number of Times the List Member Posted

Figure 4.4 - Number of Times Each List Member Posted, Nov. 1992
(focus on participants)

 

 

 

63
Figure 4.4 shows that the number of people posfing only one time far exceeds that of

any other category. As well there appears to be a substantial additional drop at four
or more postings. This drop in number of posters may make observations about
those who post four or more times less certain, if they are considered individually,
since there are so few in each numeric category. In order to more accurately discuss
the more frequent participators, those who post 4 or more times will generally be
placed in an aggregate group for comparative descriptions, as they are in Figure 4.5
From Figure 4.5 it can be seen that in November 1992 very few people pOSted
more than 3 times (approximately 7% spread over several frequency categories). The
vast majority (67%) posted only a single time, with 2 and 3 time posters comprising
about 13% of participants each. Though Figure 4.4 displays the ntunbers of posters,
it obscures their respective proportions of the monthly list traffic. Figure 4.5 offers a
more proportional way of looking at the data by the different frequency categories of

poster.

64

 

How Many Times Did Each Category of Foster" 7
Send a Message?
EDTECH November 1992

 

 

3 Messages
13%

2 Messages
13% 1 Message
. 67%

 

 

 

N = 138 Nov. 1992 Posters

Figure 4.5 - Percentage of Postings by Categories of Poster, Nov. 1992

 

 

 

The tendency when viewing Figure 4.5 is to notice that the preponderance of
posters posted only a single time, even though about a third of posters were multiple.
This chart, while accurate as to numbers, may have the effect of making it appear that
activity on the list was mostly comprised of a highly varied group of minimally
participating people who showed little continuity of participation, at least on a week
to week basis. That impression is not entirely accurate. Though the total number of
those posting more than once is lower, each one posted more than one time, so their

effect on the total list traffic, which is likely to influence the experience of other

65

participants, is different than conclusions based on only counting numbers of
participants might imply.

If number of participants in each category are multiplied by number of
messages generated by each, and the results charted, a quite different picture of what
happened in November 1992 on EDTECH emerges. Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show the
weighted quantitative and proportional views that demonstrate the effect of
considering frequency in terms of its impact on the total message flow on the list.
These figures elaborate the information presented in Figure 4.4 to include the total
number of messages posted by each category of poster.

As can be seen by comparing Figures 4.5 and 4.7, weighing to show
proportions of messages, rather than proportions of posters gives a markedly
different composition. Only about a third of message traffic was created by single
posters and the single, 2-3, and 4 or more groupings carried almost equal weight in
terms of numbers of postings. Figure 4.7 offers a picture of a discussion much more
likely to indicate some sort of community or group feeling, with most of the traffic
generated by people who would be recognizable because of their more frequent

activity.

 

 

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted

 

Messages

 

How Many Messages-IEdEac/h
Category of Poster Send?
EDTECH November1992

Total Messages Posted by
Each Category of Poster

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 42

Number of Messages Posted by Individual
Subscrlbers

 

Figure 4.6 - Number of Messages Posted by Individual Subscribers
(focus on messages)

 

 

 

 

 

67

How Many Messages Did Each Category
of Poster Send?
EDTECH November 1992

4 or more
messages
33%

3 messages 2 messages
20% 13%

[@275 Nov. 1992 Messages J

    

 

Figure 4.7 - Number of Messages Sent by Bach Category of Poster, Nov. 1992

 

 

Outlier in November 1992

In November 1992, there was a single participant who posted 42 messages.
During this period, this subscriber was cross-posting (re-posting material previously
posted on other lists) numerous messages to EDTECH and several other e-mail lists
each month. In 1993 he went on to form a separate list for cross-posting interesting
information found on the Internet, which he called Net-Happenings. At that time he
essentially ceased his cross-posting activities on EDTECH. Though he remained an
active reader of EDTECH, still forwarding copies of EDTECH messages to other

 

 

 

68
lists, his activity could be considered an anomaly of the earlier period, and does not

substantially influence the list by 1995. Though postings of this participant certainly
affected the climate of EDTECH during 1992, since there was seldom a reply to any
of these messages, his postings might be thought of as a phenomenon separate from
EDTECH itself, a sort of second, parallel list. Since it is difficult to determine
whether these postings should be called fully a part of EDTECH or not, where
relevant, descriptions of EDTECH will be rendered with and without the outlier data
on these postings to allow for interpretation on either basis.

The November 1992 quantitative and proportional statistics as calculated with
the outlier removed, are displayed in Figure 4.8 for comparative purposes. Since bar
charts and participant oriented statistics would show little variation, if a single outlier
participant were removed, only proportional, message based statistics were
recalculated in this way. Removing the outlier causes a 12% decrease in the 4 or
more message category, proportionately increasing all other categories by several
percentage points. It indicates a list substantially more oriented to low-frequency

posters overall than the statistics including the outlier would have implied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

Number of Times Each Category of Member Posted
EDTECH November 1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#of Messages

List Members 93 18 18 l 2 l 2 2 137
Total Messages

Posted 93 36 54 4 10 6 14 16 233
% Total List

Messages 39.9 15.5 23.2 1.7 4.3 2.6 6.0 6.9 L l00

 

 

 

How Many Messages Did Each Category
of Poster Send? (Outlier Removed)
EDTECH November 1992

 

4 or more
messages
21%

3 messages

23%

 

 

Figure 4.8 - Number of Times Each Category of Member Posted
(Outlier Removed)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70
In summary, in November 1992, 67% of the posters only posted with a

frequency of once per month or less. 26% were posting at an apparent frequency of

2-3 times per month, with less than 10% posting at a more frequent rate. The effect
of the single anomalous poster wasn't obvious when considering the number of

posters posting at various frequencies, but did shift several categories in a discemable

manner when considering the number of messages posted.

November 1995 Frequency

In November 1995 there were 696 messages posted by 393 people to the
EDTECH list. Figure 4.9 shows the November 1995 distribution of participants by
frequency of posting. The outlier traffic was not as pronounced in this month as it
was in November 1992. Since there was no real special category of outlier cross-
postings, charts were not constructed to show the effect of eliminating the highest
poster for November 1995. Figure 4.9 shows that most posters fell in the 1-3

frequency category with some activity at the 4-6 frequencies. The aggregate activity

of all participants who posted 4 or more times only equaled approximately 8%.

71

 

 

Number of List Members Posting Various Numbers of Messages

 

EDTECH November 1995

 

# of Messages

Posted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 Total

 

List Members 260 71 29 12 5 7 1 2 1 1 3 1 393

 

 

% of List

66218.1 7.4 3.1 1.3 1.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 100
Members

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Many Times Did Each Member Post?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDTECH November 1995

300
2'

fi 250
E
a

3 200
E

E 150
g
.l

'5 100
s
2

0,,

 

123456789101116
Total Number of Times the Llst Member Posted

 

Figure 4.9 — How Many Times Did Each List Member Post?

 

 

72

 

How Many Times Did Each Category of Poster
Send a Message?
EDTECH November 1995

 

 
    

3 messages
7%

2 messages ..
18% ‘

   
  

1 message
66%

   

 

‘4 N=393 Nov. 1995 Posters

Figure 4.10 - Nov. 1995 Participant Posting Frequencies by Percentage

 

 

 

Figure 4.10 shows the proportions of participants who posted at the different
frequencies represented. A substantial majority (67%) were people who posted only a
single time in November 1995. Participants posted exactly two times in
approximately the same frequency as they posted at all frequencies three or higher.
The picture appears to represent a list with limited community aspects and a high rate

of participation from less committed and frequent participants.

73
The information for November 1995 was recalculated and expanded to

include information on the total number of messages posted by each frequency-
category of poster in Figure 4.11 It then yields a different picture of activity on the
list. Rather than a relatively smooth decrease as number of messages increases, it
shows that a reader would experience considerable activity on the list from multiple

posters.

 

74

 

 

Number of Messages Sent by Each Category of Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDTECH November 1995
#01
Messages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 Total
Posted
List26071291257121131393
Members
Total
Mange, 260 142 87 4s 25 42 7 16 9 10 33 16 695
Posted
0
”’13:,“ 374 204 125 69 3.6 60 10 23 13 14 47 23 100
Messages
How Many Messages Did Each Category of
Poster Send?
EDTECH November 1995

3's

B s

on.

Ove-

o. o

0

as

53

0 (I

=2

'5 3

gm

 

123455789101116
Number of Manages Posted by Individual Subscribers

 

Figure 4.11 - Messages Posted by Each Category of Poster

 

 

 

75

 

 

How Many Messages Did Each Category
of Poster Send?
EDTECH November 1995

 

 
   
 

   
 

  
  

4 or more
messages
30%

    

1 message
37%

2 messages
20%

3 messages
13%

     
 
 

N=695 Nov. 1995 Posters

 

 

Figure 4.12 - % of Messages Sent by Different Frequency Posters

 

 

 

When the proportion of messages received is considered by number of
messages, as well as category of poster, then one can see that only 37.5% of the
messages in November 1995 were from single posters, and the majority of messages

were from people who posted at least 2 times.

November 1996 Frequency

In November 1996 there were 896 messages posted by 431 people to

EDTECH. Figure 4.13 displays the distribution of these messages over the 15

76

frequency categories represented. Figure 4.14 shows the relative proportions in the
single, 2, 3 and 4 or more categories. There were participants with many more
postings than others in this month, but since several people were involved and there
is no indication that the postings were unusual or of a single class, no separate
statistics were calculated to remove them as outliers. Once again, the pattern of
approximately two thirds of the posters posting only a single time within the sample
month held. The two and three time posters were still a visibly larger group than any

of the categories of more frequent participants.

 

 

 

 

 

Number of List Members Posting Various Numbers of Messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDTECH November 1996

#of
Messages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111317 22 24 Total
Posted

1"“ 2836232171316 2 2 3 3 4111431
Members

0 .

A’ML'“ 65.7 14.4 7.4 3.9 3.0 0.2 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 100
Members

 

\‘,fi_
1 How Many Times Did Each Participant Post?
EDTECH November 1996

 

 

E

8

n.

I!

E
1 i

3

“E

3

E

3

2
: 123456789101113172224

Total Number of Times Each Participant Posted 1

. L,

Figure 4.13 - How Many Times Did Each List Participant Post in Nov. 1996?

 

 

 

 

78

 

x.fi
How Many Times Did Each Category of Poster

Send a Message?
EDTECH November 1996

 

4 or More
Messages
3 Messages 13%
7%

2 Messages , 1 Message
14% _ - ' 66%

N = 431 Nov. 1996 Posters

    

Figure 4.14 - Percentage of Postings by Category, Nov. 1996

 

 

 

Figure 14.4 shows approximately two-thirds of participants were single
posters, with 2 and 3 message posters responsible for about 25% of messages and the
remainder in the 4 or more category. In order to see if previously shown trends hold
when the month is considered by messages sent by participants, rather than by
number of participants, the data was recalculated by messages (see Figures 4.15 and
4.16). As with other months, this makes a substantial difference in the apparent story

told about the dynamics of the list. It points even more strongly toward the

79

appearance of a community of discussion, rather than isolated comments, with over

43% of messages coming from participants who posted more than three times.

80

 

 

Number of Messages Sent by Each Category of List Member

 

EDTECH November 1996

 

#of

Messages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 17 22 24 Total
Posted

 

List
Members

 

Total
Messages 283 124 96 68 65 6 42 16 18 30 33 52 17 22 24 896
Posted

 

% of Total
Messages

U
p—n

.613.8 10.7 7.6 7.3 0.7 4.7 1.8 2.0 3.3‘ 3.7 5.8 1.9 2.5 2.7 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Many MessaggDEach 7 A 77‘

Category of Poster Send?
EDTECH November 1996

1 ,

l
l
l 1
l

l l

 

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

 

 

 

 

l
l
l
l

.___—__,_¥_rm_____.__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

Number of Messages Posted by Each
Category of Poster

0 .. . , . .
123456789101113172224

Number of Messages Posted by Individual Subscribers
%

Figure 4.15 - Number of Messages Posted by Individual Subscribers

 

 

 

81

 

How Many Messages Did Each Category
of Poster Send?
EDTECH November 1996

 

4 or More
Messages

43%

2 Messages
3 Messages 14%

11%

  

 

N = 896 Nov. 1996 Messges

Figure 4.16 - How Many Messages Did Each Category Send in Nov. 1996?

 

 

 

Comparison of November 1992, 1995 and 1996

Since there were over 3 times as many participants posting and nearly 3 times
as many postings in November 1995 and November 1996 as in November 1992,
comparison of gross numbers of postings would only show that there were more
messages in most postings categories 1995 and 1996. Comparison of various
proportions of monthly postings, however, can illuminate whether the general pattern
of participation seems to have varied between the three months. For this reason, the

Charts in Figures 4.17 and 4.18 concentrate on displaying comparisons of proportions

82
of postings in different frequency categories. As with a consideration of a single
month, they also look at how the actual number of postings made by each category of
poster compares.

As can be seen from Figure 4.18, the posting patterns for November 1992,
November 1995 and November 1996 look remarkably similar, when compared with
regard to percentages of total posters for the respective months. There appears to be
' some variation in the frequencies with which people posted exactly 2 and 3 times. As
these categories may describe essentially the same sort of poster, probably the
variation is not practically significant. Whether there is a real difference in overall
participation level in EDTECH between someone who posts only twice or only three
times will be investigated in more detail in later chapters. In all cases there is a clear
drop at the four posting and above level, though there may be a trend toward greater

frequency of posting in the later years of the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

umm ary of Number of Postings‘per“ ‘ ‘ - ”pant
EDTECH November 1992, 1995 &1996
# °f 3:3ng 4 3 9 or More Total
1992 Posters 1 2 1 138
0
1? Total 0.7 1.4 0.7 100
osters
1995 Posters 12 2 6 393
% Tm“ 3.1 0.5 1.5 100
Posters
1996 Posters 17 2 15 431
0
/° Total 3.9 0.5 3.5 100
Posters

 

How Many Tifisoid Egcn'iaaarei’psm Post? if

EDTECH Nov. 1992, 1995 8.1996 by Percentage
of Total Monthly Postings

70%
5 60%
8
n.
a 50%
3
§ 40%
s
3 30%
E 20%
3
E
z 10%
0%
‘ I'M-52 I
; .Nov-95 ,
\ .Nov-ss

4

8

Total Number of Tlmea the List Member Posted

9 or
More

 

 

Figure 4.17 - Comparison of Nov. 1992, 1995 8c 1996 Posting Patterns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

 

[ r___n - «WM- - -r

Comparison of Number of Times Each
Poster Sent a Message

14.4%
13.0%
67. 4V.$g

66. 2%
65.7%

    
 
   

 
 
 
  

  
   
 

Number of Pos ters I

 

Figure 4.18-Comparison of Number of Times Each Participant Posted

 

Figure 4.18 does not attempt to show comparative volume of messages, but
instead illustrates comparative quantity of posters, who posted with differing
frequencies. As experience of participation may be influenced more by actual
messages received than by posters, the comparative data was reconfigured to illustrate

message volume in Figures 4.19 and 4.20.

 

 

85

 

 

 

{”7 Siimm' " 7' aryOf Number of Mes's'agES Member? PBEte‘d‘” if

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDTECH November 1992, 1995 8C 1996

# of Messages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 or More Total
1992 Posters 93 18 18 1 2 1 2 2 l 138
Total Messages 93 36 54 4 10 6 14 16 42 275
% “Total 33.8 13.0 19.6 1.5 3.6 2.2 5.1 5.8 15.3 100
1995 Posters 260 71 29 12 5 7 1 2 6 393
Total Messages 260 142 87 48 25 42 7 I6 68 695
% of Total 37.4 20.4 12.5 6.8 3.6 6.0 1.0 2.3 9.8 100
1996 Posters 233 62 32 17 13 1 o 2 15 431
Total Messages 283 124 96 68 65 6 42 16 196 896
% of Total 31.6 13.8 10.7 7.6 7.3 0.7 4.7 1.8 21.9 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Messages Did Each Member Post?
EDTECH Nov. 1992, 1995 & 1996 by Percentage
of Total Monthly Postings

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
1 5%
1 0%

Percentage of Monthly Postlng

5%

 

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9or
Tim "m
l Nov-95 I
I - Total Number of Meeea es Pertlcl ans Sent
l UNov-se l 9 p ‘
rh— l

Figure 4.19 - ComparisonFofflNov. 1992,595— arid‘i996.Post_'1ng Patterns
L__

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

 

 

Comparison of Number of Messages
Sent by Each Category of Poster

fl

4 or More
Postings

      
 
 

 
    

43%

i 2 Postings 20%
' 14%
20%
: ~_ 0/0

f 5..”
r - 13
, ".1
' _ " 1"»..-
\ 3 ‘ 4

g lPosting ‘ ~
l g. A. NumberofMessages

   

 

1992 = 275
1995 = 695
1996 = 896

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.20 - Comparison of Number of Messages Sent
November 1992, 1995 and 1996

 

 

 

Though interesting in the details, Figure 4.19 makes it somewhat difficult to
perceive the comparative impact. Figure 4.20 shows how the pattern compared.
Though there is an evident increase in proportion of non-frequent posters in 1996.
Other categories show more similar proportions. Since Figure 4.20 showed data with
the outlier 1992 participant included, it was recalculated. As Figure 4.21 shows,
removing the outlier does affect the analysis. It only changes 1992, making the match

 

87

 

 

Comparison of Number of Messages
Sent by Each Category of Poster
(1992 outlier removed)

 

 

QPostings

   
   

4 or More
Postings

43 ’/o

20%
14%
15% Q

h.
x
“i .
. a
. 0 I
.. .
t
.
. - l ».‘¥.h‘.r
. r___ . . ‘..
r. i . | e ;'__:_.'
. I _
o. -
\ .
o _ . .\
‘.
‘ __ -vo \
. 0 . ".J‘V‘n . ‘
. ‘9‘,__' "‘--v"' '
m.

l 2 Postings

 

e
e‘ '9

 

an“...
37%
32% I

  
  

‘umber omessages
1992 = 233
1995 = 695
1996 = 896

 

 

[ lPosting

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Figure 4.21 - Comparison of Number of Messages Sent (1992 outlier removed)

 

 

 

less clear on single posters, and more clearly indicating possible trend over time
toward a larger percent of postings overall in the 4 or more category.

Conclusions and Areas for Future Study

The data tends to support the conclusion that EDTECH postings are
distributed over a relatively consistent frequency pattern over time, particularly with
regard to categories of participants who make the postings. Initial analysis of duration

88
(see Chapter 3) shows that there was little overlap in participants between 1992 and

1995, so the frequency of posting was probably not completely due to posting
characteristics of specific individual list participants. In particular it indicates that
about one third of the group who posts are multiple posters or more active
participants. The pattern of variation in the data may be a phenomena of the list
itself and how it varies with response to change in the field and methods of electronic

communication.

Questions for Further Study

Due to the volume of messages, it is difficult to look at groupings of more
than a few months. It is possible that additional sampling, more random sampling,
and variations on sampling techniques would yield useful data to help researchers
further understand frequency of posting on a discussion list like this and factors that
might influence it. Some additional questions that might be researched include:

0 Would the monthly percentages indicated in this Chapter remain the same if they
were averaged over a consecutive three month period?

0 Though this study shows frequency within a particular time frame, it doesn't
indicate ongoing rate which could vary over time due to many factors. What
would be shown by studying different slices of time, or consecutive slices?

0 One could observe the cumulative frequency within the group as time increases.
What percentage of 2 time posters would become 3 time posters if the period
were extended another week? 2 weeks? 3 weeks?

89

0 Would frequency be different in different months such as April or July?

0 What are daily rates? Average daily frequency? Could a smaller sample be
extrapolated into an equivalent pattern?

0 Would the apparent pattern of 2/ 3 single posters hold if tested over a number of
different months? If so, does this phenomena show up in other listserv groups?
Other types of online groups?

0 Is this frequency signature consistent with only EDTECH? Is it also displayed by
other lists or other lists configured in similar ways? Which list configuration
variables might affect it and how?

0 Does the change in the number or type of topics discussed in a month affect the

frequency of posting?

In summary, study of the three base months shows patterns in frequency of
posting that appear to endure over time. Alone, it does not make clear what effect
the medium and content of the discussion have on establishing these patterns, but it

does Open a rich area for additional research into frequency patterns on email lists.

Chapter 5

CONTINUITY AND DURATION OF
PARTICIPATION

Overview

In this chapter continuity and duration of participation in the EDTECH list

are examined. In Figure 5.1 the general areas investigated in the chapter are outlined.

 

General Organization of Continuity and Duration Chapter

Overview of Base
I Months in 1992 & 1995
, i it
'? General 3 Month ; Duration Over 8
; Continuity ; Years
l Comparisons l
. V ‘1 .

,—

 

 

 

 

 

 

. * Duration b
i Continuity by '. Frequencyy
Frequency Category '1
1 Category

 
 

 

 

 

Figure 5.1-Overview of Continuity 8: Duration Chapter

Continuity was analyzed over a 3 month period (a target month and the months
immediately preceding and following it) and duration over an eight year period of
EDTECH. This chapter discusses whether someone participating in the group or

studying its archives, would find essentially the same set of people participating, from
90

91

month to month if looking at sequential months, or from year to year if surveying a
more expanded time period. In addition, it refines findings on continuity and
duration by breaking them into categories by frequency at which participants posted.
In particular in this study the question of whether people who post more
frequently also tend to post over a greater length of time is examined. Whether
continuity and duration patterns appear to remain consistent over time in EDTECH,
irrespective of the number of participants and frequency of messages is also
investigated.
There are numerous ways a researcher could examine continuity and duration.
For example, one could select a target month, and look forward in time from it, or
backwards in time. One could select different time frames than 3 months or a year,
or measure several months as a group, without differentiating any single month as a
target. The possible value of selecting a target, and then looking at time frames on
either side of it, is to simulate the experience of a subscriber who may be reading list
messages at any given point in time. To some extent it is possible that the way
he/ she values and integrates any given posting is influenced by how often and in
what context the names of the same posters have appeared in the past, and also how
often and in what way that topic has been discussed. After a tepic has been
discussed, the way people respond to it may be influenced by how recently they saw it
before on the list, and what was said about it and by whom. People's recent

experience with someone else on an e-mail lisr may, at least over the short term,

92

reflects how they will respond to the same person in the future. In the long term, it
may impact how much they trust the content of the posting. As many people only
participate in the EDTECH group for a short period of time, continuity would reflect
their experience of participating in a coherent community over the short term Three
months is a time period similar to that found in a university or secondary school
term. It indicates what a new subscriber to the list might observe during a relatively
short encounter with it, or what a university student participating during a class might
experience in terms of the consistency and diversity of the learning group. Several
years is more a length a professional in the field might expect to participate in an e-
Continuity and duration can also be used as one of the ways measure aspects
of diversity in an e-mail list. As with other configurations and time frames, whether a
great diversity in participation is to be desired or not is open to debate. In a large,
open-participation group, such as EDTECH, if there were not different people
actively participating from month to month, it would imply stagnation in the group.
During the time frame of this study, there were around 2000 active subscribers and 8-
10 thousand or more newsgroup and bulletin board participants, plus a substantial
WW and Gopher readership in EDTECH. Less than 1000 messages were posted
per month from between 200 and 400 individuals. From this one would expect a
substantial percentage of diversity in posters during any given month, if wide

participation from all possible posters were to be achieved. There is, however, no

93

agreed upon standard for how diverse this participation should be in order to indicate
the widest range of people were being reached and feeling involved enough in the
group to participate actively. If individual participation is too diverse and infrequent,
no one participant would have the experience of familiarity and continuitywith the
others, or the assurance that there might be trustworthy people participating and
willing to respond to inquiries. If it is not diverse enough, there will be a constraint
on what is discussed and how, as the same population settles into familiar routines
that in some way exclude or limit newcomers. Though this study cannot answer the
question of what levels of diversity and change might be best, it can offer measures

that could be further interpreted within the context of studies of additional lists.
Continuity for 1992 and 1995 Base Months

In order to calculate the continuity for posters in the two base months of

November 1992 and November 1995 on EDTECH, lists of all the postings
organized by subscriber were generated and total subscribers for these periods
counted. (See Coding Sheet A in Appendix A for details on how the number of
posters in each time period were determined.) For this study, continuity was analyzed
through a range of one month on either side of the base months, i.e. October and
December of the respective years. In order to accomplish this, listings of October
and December for 1992 and 1995 were also generated. These listings were compared

by number of postings, number of posters, and mean number of postings per poster.

In addition, various comparisons of the two base months were made. Depending on

94

the date of the posting(s) made in November, comparing with the preceding and
ensuing months represents a 30-60 day span of time from any individual the
November posting. It should be emphasized that all calculations are based on the
respective N ovembers and comparisons with them. If percentages and other
statistics were calculated based on October or December, different results might be
found. Figure 5.2 summarizes the overall counts and percentages of postings and

posters during the base months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Postings 8: Posters -- 1992 St 1995

Oct. 1992 Nov. 1992 Dec. 1992
Total Postings 306 275 293
# “Posters 155 138 144
Average # of
Postings /Poster 1.97 1.99 2.03

Oct. 1995 Nov. 1995 Dec. 1995
Tm“ ”Stings 706 696 616
# 0f Posters 402 393 340
Average # of
Postings /Poster 1.76 1.77 1.81 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.2- Summary of Posters and Postings over 3 Months

 

In order to more clearly represent and compare these months, charts were
generated of the participant and posting information. Figure 5.3 shows the graphical
patterns of postings and posters. Note that the scale is different on the two charts,

since there were many more postings than posters. As the chart shows, the pattern is

95

quite similar across the years in the relationship between postings and numbers of
posters when the charts are proportionally scaled.

As Figure 5.3 shows, there was a considerable change between November of
1992 and November of 1995 in postings, with less than half the number of postings
in November 1992, that were made in November 1995. There were also less than
half the number of posters in November 1992 than in November 1995, with the
number of posters in each month showing an additional approximately 5% decrease

over the decrease in the number of postings.

96

 

 

Number of Messages Posted

Number of Postings
Three Months in 1992 vs. 1995

 

 

 

 

October November December

 

Number of Participants Postin

 

 

 

 

 

 

October November December

 

 

 

Figure 5.3 - Comparison of Number of Oct., Nov. 8: Dec. Postings

 

 

97

Over the 3 month period being studied, despite diversity in numbers of
postings, the rate of postings/ per poster remained quite constant. Differences in
averages in each time frame were slight, and possibly if the comparison were
controlled for seasonal variation (December), the 12% decrease in postings per poster
from 1992 to 1995 would be uniform over all three months with a maximum half
percent variation. Whether this decrease represents a real change in list behavior or is
more a function of the increased number of posters in 1995 in some way, is difficult
to determine without examining some of the cases individually. However, the change

occurred, it appears to be consistent though.

 

 

Number of Postings/Poster:
Three Months in 1992 vs. 1995

 

 

Number of
Participants Posting

 

October November December 5.1995 ‘
.1995 l1

 

 

Figure 5.4 -- Comparison of Number Postings/ Poster

 

 

98

As will be noted in various statistics in this study, there was an unusual outlier
in 1992. One individual posted 69 times in Oct. 1992, 42 times in Nov. 1992, and 35
in Dec. 1992. Removal of the outlier shifts the relationship between the months over
the 2 different years, showing 1995 with a slightly higher posting/ poster ratio than

1992. Figure 5.5 displays this shift.

 

237 233

1.54 1.69

 

 

Number of Postings/Poster
(without outlier)
Three Months in 1992 vs. 1995

 

 

 

Number of
Participants Posting

 

    

       

 

‘1
A17
..

a 1§——__-——q

f:

X.”

7 October November December .1992 g
l ‘J .1995 1"

 

Figure 5.5 -- Comparison Postings/ Poster (outliers removed)

 

 

 

99

With or without the outlier, in general the averages are close. Since all of the
type of information received might have affected people's willingness to participate,
the full month totals including outlier will be used for more comparisons in this
study. Figure 5.5 was calculated to point out there are factors in the list that do affect
trends and which might be worth study in later research.

100

General Three Month Continuity Comparisons

After the initial totals for October, November and December were
determined, the lists of people posung in November 1992 and November 1995 were
correlated with lists of names of people posting in October and December of the
respective years. As people may participate in general, but miss a particular month,
or enter or leave the group in November, statistics were also calculated for those who
posted in October OR November. To indicate how many showed a greater level of
continuity over the span, a statistic for those who posted in all of October,

November and December was also determined. (See Appendix A for details.) Figure

 

 

 

 

  

 

 
  
   

 

 
  

 

  

 

 
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.6 summarizes these findings.
' CONTINUITY‘COMPARISONS - EDTECH
A ALSO ALSO ALSO ‘ C
1992 POSTED IN ALSO POSTED POSTED IN POSTED POSTED IN
NOV. 1992 IN OCT. 1992 DEC 1992 OCT. OR OCT. AND
' DEC. 1992 DEC. 1992
# of
Posters 138 50 56 80 26
% of
Nov. 0 o o o
1992 100.0% 36.2 /o 40.6 /. 58.0 /o 18.8 /o
Postin s j *1
ALSO ALSO ALSO
1995 POSTED IN ALSO POSTED POSTED IN POSTED POSTED IN
NOV. 1995 IN OCT. 1995 DEC 1995 OCI'. OR OCT. AND
' DEC. 1995 DEC. 1995
If °f 393 139 141 207 73
osters
% of
Nov
1995 100.0% 35.4% 35.9% 52.7% 18.6%
Postin s
Figure 5.6 - Continuity Comparisons, November 1992 8: 1995

 

 

 

101

The charts in Figure 5.7 display the comparisons of how the months
November 1992 and November 1995 appeared. It should be noted that the scale of
the y axis is different for the two months, as there were almost 3 times as many
posters in Nov. 1995 as in Nov. 1992.

However, though the numbers of postings were very different in November
1992 and November 1995, the overall pattern looks remarkably similar. The charts
were organized to show the three months in chronological order, with the statistic for

all 3 months to the left and the statistic for either October or December to the right.

102

 

 

 

Continuity of Participation
Based on EDTECH November 1992

 

 

 

 

 

Number who Posted

 

Fbsted 'l'i MN. Also Fbsted Also Rasted Also Fbsted Also Fbstod
1992 at. 1992 Dec. 1992 Oct. or Dec. Oct And lbs.
1992 1992

Months when Novenbor Posters Made
Additional Postings

 

Continuity of Participation
Based on EDTECH November 1995

 

 

 

 

Number who Posted
N
O
O

    

1 ,.

J 4:: 7:2 3:41,“; ffi ~l .3" ' ' '1
1‘ Fbsted in Nov. Also in Oct. Also in Dec. Also Oct. or Also Oct. and 1
, 1995 1895 1895 tat-.1995 Dac.1895

1

Months when Novenbor Posters Made Additional \
1 Postings ‘

Figure 5.7 - Continuity of Participation in Nov. 1992 and Nov. 1995

 

 

103

Only about 35% of the individuals posting in a given month also posted a
message in the preceding or succeeding month. Figure 5.7 illustrates the carry-over
of posters for October and December individually appears very similar. When the
wider time frame allowing a month span on either side (Ocr. or Dec.) was allowed, it
appears a substantial (over 15%) increase in one month longevity appears, or about
50% of participants remain active within a month of posting. In other words, of
those who posted in November, over 50% posted again or had posted in October or
December.

In order to give a more complete context, statistics were also calculated for
those who posted in either the previous or the following month. When those who
had posted in all three months (November, December AND October) were
calculated however, a substantial drop was seen with less than 20% consistently
posting in all three months. In part, this could be a result of individuals entering or
leaving the group during the month of November, and so not being available to post
during the month they were not subscribed. It also appears possible that many
individuals who post do nor do so for more than two consecutive months.

Though it is important to use raw numbers in looking at what happened in
any individual month, since the absolute numbers of postings strongly affect the
amount of information being carried by the group, as well as the experience of
individual posters, it is possible that a more valuable comparison of the two months

could be determined by charting the relative percentages of the base month.

104

 

 

Comparative Continuity of
Participation Based on EDTECH
November 1992 & 1995

120%

 
       

100% #101992 ‘

+1995 5

80%

60%

40%

Percent Who Posted

20%

0%

 

Also Posted Also Posted Posted in Also Posted Also Posted
Oct. And Oct. Nov. Dec. Oct. or Dec.
Dec.

Months when November Posters Made Additional Postings

Figure 5.8 - Comparative Continuity

 

g

Certainly percentages more clearly illustrate the correspondence or difference in what
happened in any two target months. Figure 5.8 compares the November 1992 8?.

1995 continuity by percentage. It displays graphs that look so remarkably similar that
they tend to imply that there may be patterns of participation inherent in this list itself

or lists in general, irrespective of time or particular participants.

105

Continuity by Frequency Category

In order to determine whether the likelihood of a person participating on a
regular and continuing basis is influenced by the frequency of posting in any given
time period, posters in November 1992 and November 1995 were divided into

categories. For most parts of this study, the following categories were used.

Single posters

Multiple (2 ) posters, who posted exactly 2 times
Multiple (3) posters, who posted exactly 3 times
Multiple (4+) posters, who posted 4 or more times

These categories of November posters were compared with all people posting during
October and December of 1992 and 1995 to find the degree of overlap.

Though there may be a difference between those who only post once and
those who post more than once, as the number of postings increases and the
frequency with which any individual posts a given number of times decreases, the
variability in considering any class based on increased number of postings alone
increases. Errors in counting, lost email, email that didn’t get sent by the editor and
other factors can disproportionately alter the results between categories of posters at
the higher numbers. The multiple (2) and multiple (3) classess are less clearly distinct.
They do serve to point at overall trends as numbers of postings increase and to help
establish whether these seem to be major distinctions between multiple (2) and

multiple (3) posters.

106

The tendency to post 5 vs. 6 or 7 vs. 8 times may not aetually indicate much
or be significant due to the variability inherent in small numbers of posters.
Nevertheless, it was felt that an aggregate category of 4 or more, might give a more
accurate overall impression of the tendencies predicted by very frequent multiple
posting behavior. The aggregate categories can be used to establish whether there
appears to be a trend toward greater longevity with those posting more than with

those posting less overall.

Continuity Comparisons

For purposes of illustration, single poster continuity will be described
individually as well as in combination with that of multiple posters. The single posters
were the most common category for EDTECH in November 1992 and 1995. It is
possible that frequently single posters are frequently not regular subscribers, but are
simply broadcasting an announcement or other information. Their rate of
continuous posting may differ from those who post more than once in a given time
period, and there may also be differences among categories of those who pOSted

more than one time.

 

107

 

 

Single Messages by Poster

 

November 1992 November 1995

 

# of Posters 93 262

 

% of Total Poster 67.4% 67%

 

 

 

Single as 3 Percentage of Messages Posted

 

 

 

 

 

# of Posters 93 262
°/o of Total
Postings 33.8% 37.5%

 

 

Figure 5.9 -- Single Posters in Nov. 1992 8: Nov. 1995

 

 

 

As Figure 5.9 shows, approximately 2/ 3 of the posers and over 1/ 3 of the
messages came from people who posted only once in 1992 and 1995. In fact, the
figures were remarkably similar over these 2 months.

 

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

SINGLE POSTSERS, EDTECH NOVEMBER 1992
ALSO ALSO POSTED ALSO ALSO
POSTED POSTED ONCE 1N POSTED POSTED
OCT. AND IN OCT. NOV. IN DEC. OCT. OR
mac. 1995 1992 1992 I995 DEC. 1995
# of People 12 25 93 31 44
% of Total # of
People Posting 12.9% 26.8% 100% 33.3% 47.3%
Once in Nov. 1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continuity of Participation
for Single Posters
Based on EDTECH November 1992

Number who Posted

 

Also in OcLAlso in Oct. Single Also in DecAlso in Oct.

AND Dec.
1992

Months when November Posters
Made Additional Postings

1992 Posters Nov.
1992

1992 OR Dec.

1992

 

Figure 5.10- Single Posters, November 1992, Compared with PreceEn—g;nd
Following Months

 

 

 

Of particular interest is the fact that single posters tend to be infrequent or

one time only posters, with less than half posting in either the preceding or the

109

following months, and only 13% posting in both. Figure 6 shows the substantial

difference between Nov. 1992 postings and overlap with other months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SINGLE POSTERS, EDTECH NOVEMBER 1995
ALSO POSTED ALSO PO'STED ALE ALSO POSTED
OCT. on DEC. POSTED IN ONCE m NOV. POSTED IN OCT. OR DEC.

1995 OCT. 1995 1995 DEC. 1995 1995

25 62 262 69 106

9.5% 23.7% 100% 26.3% 40.5%

Continuity of Participation

for Single Posters
Based on EDTECH November 1995

Number who Posted

 

Also in OctAlso in Oct. Single Also in Dec.Also in Oct.
AND Dec. 1995 Posters Nov. 1995 OR Dee. 1995
1995 1995
Months when November Posters Made
Additional Postings

 

Figure 5.11 - Single Posters, Nov. 1995 by Posting

 

 

 

For Single posters, analysis of November 1995 indicates that if a person only

posted one time in November of 1995, that person displays about a 10% less

110

likelihood of posting in October, November, or the longer span comprised of either

October or November, than someone from the general population of posters would

 

 

Comparative Continuity for Single
Posters Based on EDTECH
November 1992 & 1995

120%

100%

.0. 1992

+ 1995
80%

Percent who Posted

60%
40%

20%

 

0%
Also in Oct. Also in Oct. Single Also in Dec. Also in Oct.
AND Dec. Posters Nov. OR Dec.

Months when November Posters Made Additional Postings

Figure 5.12-ComparativeContinuity for Single Posters

 

 

 

111

Continuity for Multiple Posters

Is the continuity or other pOSting patterns of those who post more than once
different from those who post exactly once? There are a number of ways to
characterize the posting patterns of a person who posts more than once in a month.
In this section the continuity of posting for those who post exactly 2, 3, 4 or more
times is considered to see if that differs from the pattern of those who only post
once.

Figure 5.13 summarizes the numbers of participants who posted more than

once during November of 1992.

 

- .viirb

 

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POSTINGS BY FREQUENCY, NOVEMBER 1992
POSTED ALSO IN OCT. ' ALSO IN
SINGLE ONCE IN 33%;; $329135 OR DEC. OCT. AND
NOV. 1992 i i 1995 DEC. 1995
# of People 93 25 31 44 12
mm who
Posted Once in 100% 26.8% 33.3% 47.3% 12.9%
Nov. 1992

POSTED 2

 

 

ALSO IN
ALSO IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT.
MULTIPLE (2) {Wig OCT. 1992 DEC. 1995 OR DEC. 1995 OCT' AND

 

 

 

DEC. 1995
# Of People 18 7 10 12 5
% of People
gfifgsffgf 100% 38.9% 55.6% 66.7% 27.8%
1992
POSTED 3

 

ALSO IN
ALSO IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT.
MULTIPLE 13’ IiiiiiErsg OCT. 1992 DEC. 1992 OR DEC. 1992 mm AND

 

 

 

 

DEC. 1992
# of People 18 12 10 16 6
% of People
‘l’h" 1’93th 3 100% 66.7% 55.6% 88.9% 33.3%
Times In Nov.
1992
POSTED 4

 

MULTIPLE 4+ OR MORE ALSO IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT. ALSO 1”

TIMESIN OCT. 1992 DEC. 1992 ORDEC.1992 0“ AND
NOV.l992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEC: 1992
# of People 9 6 5 8 3
% People who
. PM.“ 4 100% 66.7% 55.6% 88.9% 33.3%
Times In Nov.
1992 IN
POSTED ALSO
ALSO IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT.
TOTAL IN NOV. OCT. AND
1992 OCT. 1992 DEC. 1992 OR DEC. 1992 DEC. 1992
# of People 138 50 56 80 26
% of those
Who Posted in 100% 36.2% 40.6% 58.0% 18.8%
Nov. 1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.13 - Continuity for November 1992

 

 

 

 

 

ConfimityofPaficipationforDflferert' ,_,_, 7m
FreqreneiesofPoshersterrbeHSQZ

Number who Posted

 

Aisoinoa1982 Aminoargea Mispreposas AisoinDecum Aisoincrmgga 03W”

.MWZ
admmgw Mai/1&2 orEbciw DMltipleti
NbrflrsMrenhbverrberPosterstheAddiflomlPostings BMW“

Figure 5.14--1992 Continuity by Posting Frequency

 

 

 

Chart 5.14 represents the numbers Of postings in each frequency in graphical
format. The multiple 2 and 3 statistics were gathered to determine if there appears to
be a difference between those who post a small number Of times, from the single
poster category, and also from those who posted much more frequently. Only two
postings does not necessarily indicate any sustained type of participation. They will
also show if there appears to be any trend in posting behavior as the exact number of
postings increases. The aggregate multiple (4+) posting figures would also indicate
any such trend, but would be more influenced by the effects of the postings of the

very active participants.

114

Though some trends can be observed, like the drop in most categories from
single to multiple (4+) posters, Observing the raw data does not give as clear of an
impression as looking at the comparative percentages with which various categories

of poster continue to post.

 

 

 

115

Figure 5.15 contrasts the percentages for each frequency category of poster.

 

 

 

Percent Who Posted

 

Continuity of Participation for TTTTTTTTTT

- -Multiple 4+
Single & Multiple 2, 3 and 4+ Posters
-CJ-Multiple3
November 1992 By Percentage
'0-Multiple2

"i-Singlc

   

Also Oct. and Also Posted in Posted in Nov. Also Posted in Also Posted in
Dec. 1992 Oct. 1992 1992 Dec. 1992 Oct. or Dec. 1992

Months when November Posters Made Additional Postings

 

 

 

Figure 5.15 - November 1992 Continuity by Percentage

 

The multiple (4+) poster percentages for 1992 were exactly the same as the

multiple (3), so the plot overlaps. It displays more clearly the trend toward higher
numbers of postings and greater continuity. This trend is further emphasized by

analysis of the November 1995 numbers in Figures 5.16 and 5.17.

 

 

 

116

 

 

POSTINGS BY FREQUENCY, NOVEMBER 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SINGLE 33:33 ALSO IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT. 0‘33?”
Nov. 1995 OCT. 1995 DEC. 1995 OR DEC. 1995 DEC. 1995
# of People 260 62 69 106 25
% of those
3:531:61: 100% 23.7% 26.3% 40.5% 9.5%
Nov. 1995
POSTE-DEZ ALSO IN ALSO IN
mug?“ TIMES IN OCT. 1995 3:32;; $15352 (1’3“ OCT. AND
Nov.1995 ‘ ° DEC. 1995
[ # of People 71 35 31 50 15
(I % of those
ӣ122:th 2 100% 50.0% 44.3% 71.4% 21.4%
Nov. 1995
MULTIPLE figfigfi ALSO IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT. $3131)
(3) Nov. 1995 OCT. 1995 DEC. 1995 OR DEC. 1995 DEC. 1995
# Of People 29 16 14 19 11
% of those
”13:12:th 3 100% 53.3% 46.7% 63.3% 36.7%
Nov. 1995
POSTED 4 ALSO IN
MULTIPLE OR MORE ALSO IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT. OCT AND
(4+) TIMES IN OCT. 1995 DEC. 1995 OR DEC. 1995 mg 1995
Nov. 1995 '
# of PCOple 33 26 26 31 21
% of those
“1&2:th 4 100% 78.8% 78.8% 93.9% 63.6%
Nov. 1995
ALSO ALSO IN
POSTED IN ALSO IN ALSO IN OCT.
TOTAL POSTED IN OCT. AND
NOV. 1995 OCT. 1995 DEC 1995 OR DEC. 1995 DEC. 1995
# of People 393 139 141 207 73
% of those
who posted 100% 35.4% 35.9% 52.7% 18.6%
in Nov. 1995
Figure 5.16 - Continuity for November 1995 Postings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

 

 

Continuity of Participation for Different
Frequencies Of Posters November 1995

300
250
200
1 50
1 00

50

Number who Posted

 

0

Also in Oct. Also in Oct. Posters Nov. Also in Dec. Also in Oct.
AND Dec. 1995 OR Dec.“

ESHir/fgierm ’7
Months when November Posters Made gflflfigti j
Additional Postings D Multiple 4+ 1

 

Figure 5.17 - Continuity by Number of Postings -- Nov. 1995

 

 

 

As can be seen in Figure 5.17, continuity for those who posted exactly twice in
November 1995 was markedly higher than that Of single posters, 26% for October,
18% for December and 30% for the October/ December aggregate. They do not
reach the same levels of continuity as those who post three or more times though
(see Figure 5.15) since they post 15% less on individual months, though only 8% less
for the combination.

Figure 5.17 might be misleading however in that it appears to show that
continuity is higher among the participants who posted exactly 2 times, than it is for
those who posted more. When viewed by percentages, Figure 5.18 gives another

view of the relationship between the multiple 2, 3 and 4+ posters. It examines what

118

percentage of those who posted a given number of times also posted in the previous

and ensuing months.

 

 

-o-Mump1e 4+

Continuity of Participation for
Single & Multiple 2, 3 and 4+ Posters

      

-O-Multiple 3
November 1995 By Percentage -o-Mump1e2
120 *Single
3 100
g 80
o
-= 60
. B
‘5 40
‘ 8
‘- 20
fl
0
Also Oct. and Also Posted in Posted in Nov. Also Posted in Also Posted in
Dec. 1995 Oct. 1995 1995 Dec. 1995 Get. or Dec.
1995

Months when November Posters Made Additional Postings

Figure 5.18 - Multiple Postings by Percentage“,

 

 

 

The trend toward greater continuity of participation for those who post more
in a given month continued to increase as the number of postings in the base month,
November 1995 increased. When continuity was calculated with those who posted 4
or more times (multiple 4+) in November 1995, those who posted in October,
November and October or November showed an additional 115-16% increase over

those who posted 3 or more times. This may indicate that there is a shift in

119

continuity at around the Multiple (4+) level , a level which would indicate a posting a

week on the average.

Duration over Eight Years

of continuing participation in the e-mail group for one year or longer. Continuity
statistics indicated how familiar a participant might find others in the group during a
short period of time. Duration, though it may also reflect this, is an indicator of
long-term participant satisfaction and of the development and maintenance of an
expert cadre within the group (people who have participated in the group for a
greater length of time).

Though there are many possible ways of looking at duration, in this study
duration was calculated bi-directionally in time. In other words it was calculated
using the preceding as well as ensuing years in order to derive data on if people
participating in any given year still participated in the future, as well as were
participating in the past. Since duration can be considered in both the past and the
funne, it can only be calculated with respect to a specific point in time. This section
Will discuss duration with respect to November 1992 and November 1995
participation over several years. For consistency with other parts of the study, the
base months of November 1992 and 1995 were used and contrasted with Novembers
in other years for which data was available. Figure 5.18 summarizes the numbers of

 

 

 

 

 

120

postings and posters, and average of postings/ poster for each November between
1989 and 1996.

As Figure 5.19 shows, EDTECH postings increased yeariy between 1990 and
1996, showing the most marked increase between 1993 and 1994. The 1992 and
1995 base months should help point out any differences in overall EDTECH
participation that occurred at the time of the large increases during 1994-5. Despite
these increases, postings/ poster have not markedly varied since 1992, remaining at
about 2 j; .25. This may indicate a stability in the type of participation on the list,

irrespective of the subscribers themselves.

 

. Jam

 

 

 

121

 

 

l EDTECH Postings in November 1989-1996

 

 

 

 

 

Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Number Of 128 77 186 275 357 732 696 896
Messages
Number 0f 67 57 119 138 205 358 393 409
Posters
Messages 1.91 1.35 1.56 1.99 1.74 2.04 1.77 2.19
er Poster

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

I Messages

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

l Posters

Figure 5.19 -- Messages and Posters in November over 8 Years

 

 

There is a technical difficulty making comparisons of duration, as the numbers
of messages in the target months were not the same, nor were the numbers of people
posting. Controlling for either of these variables might affect the outcome of

statistical data presented. On the other hand, from the point Of view of learning, the

 

 

122

entire experience of posters includes frequency and immediacy of posting and
response. A different incidence of repeat posting from one year to another might
show up if the numbers of posters or postings between two months were equalized.
So expanding the time frame for comparison on earlier data in order to equalize the
number of postings being compared might also distort the data with respect to how
and why the communications were delivered as they were. Therefore, analysis was
conducted using the single month of November over this 8 year period, to examine
what that might indicate about duration of participation, even though there were

varying numbers of posters and postings in different years.

 

123

 

 

 

 

November 1992 Base Month
Also in Also in Also in Nov. Also in Also in Also in Also in }
Nov. 89 Nov. 90 Nov. 91 1992 Nov. 93 Nov. 94 Nov. 95 Nov. 96 .
8 10 18 138 33 16 8 5
53% 7.2% 13.0% 100% 23.9% 11.6% 5.8% 3.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number who Posted

Duration of Participation

Based on EDTECH November 1992

 

Also in Also in Also in Nov. Also in Also in Also in Also in

Nov.
1989

Nov.
1990

Nov.
1991

1992 Nov.

1993

Nov.
1994 1995

Nov.

Nov.
1996

Months when November Posters Made Additional

 

 

Postings

Figure 5.20 -- Duration based on November 1992

 

 

When the names of November 1992 posters were matched with the names of

posters in November of other years, the results shown in Figure 5.19 were obtained.

They show a quick drop-off to about 10% continued participation over 2 years and a

residual participation of around 5% more than 2 years from the target month. The

numbers drop more steeply looking toward the past. Nearly a quarter of the

participants were still posting a year after the November 1992 base month. It appears

124

that current participation indicates duration more strongly for the future, than it

reflects past activity.

November 1995 Base Month
When the figures were recalculated to make November 1995 the base month,

the statistics in Figure 5.21 were generated.

Also in Also in Nov.
. 92 Nov. 93 Nov. 94 1995
Int-Imm—

Duration of Participation
Based on EDTECH November 1995

 
     
  

 
 
 
  

E
<
93
z
.5?
8 .
z
.53
3
g
<

     
  
 
 

  
 
  

Number Posting

 

 
  

    

Alsoin Alsoin Alsoin Alsoin Alsoin Postedin Alsoin
Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov.

Alsoin
Nov.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

  

         

itional Postings

 

Months when November Posters Made Add

    
 

Figure 5.21 - 1995 Duration for November Over 8 Years

 

As can be seen, there is a considerable drop-off in duration of participation

with only 18% of the November 1995 posters also appearing in the November 1996

 

125

logs. Though the percentages seem a bit lower in November of 1996 than in
November of 1992, this may be related to the increased numbers of single posters,

rather than to a real difference in long-term participation.

 

 

Duration of Participation for 7 ‘ 7
EDTECH Based on '0-1”2
November 1992 & 1995 By Percentage , #1995

120.0% =
N = 393 Nov. 1995 Posters

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

Percent Posting

20.0%

0.0%

 

Also in Also in Also in Also in Also in Also in Posted in Also in
Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov.
1989 1990 199] 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Months when November Posters Made Additional Postings

Figure 5.22 --Duration of Participation by Percentage

 

 

Since there were unequal numbers of postings overall in 1992 and 1995, to
more effectively compare the results, the numbers were converted to monthly
postings and charted together. Though the nodes fall in different years in the charts
above, the general pattern appears to be quite similar for each with a sharp drop-off
during the first year, some additional drop-off in the second, and a residual number

of long-term posters remaining.

 

126

Duration by Frequency Category
Detailed statistics were compiled for each of the major frequency categories of
posted studied (single, multiple (2), multiple (3) and 4 or more).

 

Of]

1 992

1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995

Ofl
1995

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

 

Figure 5.23 -- Duration by Frequency Category

 

 

 

127

Listings of postings organized by poster were generated for each November
from 1989 to 1996. Then posters were correlated and notations made of names
which appeared in the target month and also in other years. Counts were not only of
the tOtals but also divided by people who posted exactly one, two or three times, and
those who posted 4 or more times in the given month. In all cases, participation in a
given year seems to predict a higher degree of participation in the ensuing year than
in the preceding one. This tendency seems more marked in 1992 than in 1995,
perhaps since in general the degree of Internet participation was increasing more in
1992 than in 1995, and there were less options like the WWW available to lure
participants into other avenues for information gathering. It should be noted that
beyond one year and in all calculations of multiple posters, the raw numbers are so
low as to cast doubt on their accuracy, except as general indicators of trends, since in

various cells of the table a variation of even one poster would alter the effect shown.

 

Iv I
‘n

 

 

128

 

Duration by Frequency Category for
EDTECH Based on ’45-:sing’1ek

November 1992 Percentages *2 °r3
31:112.

 

 

120.0%
100.0%
g 80.0%
1°. 60.0%
E
‘3' 40.0%
i
20.0%
0.0%
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 I996
Months when November 1992 Posters Made Additional
Postings
Duration by Frequency Category for i:°:STns:/
EDTECH Based on ‘ "' 2°” ‘
=-I-4 M
November 1995 Percentages ' __-_L£ 1
120.0%
100.0%
‘ ., 80.0%
.5
£63. 60.0%
‘ E
a 40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 I996
Months when November 1995 Posters Made Additional
Postings

Figure 5.24 - Duration by Frequency Category

 

 

 

129

Writh single posters, there is a very large drop in duration even in the first year.
Rather than receding to 10% over two years, it appears to do this very rapidly. Even
in the first month, the continuity study showed a drop to between 25-33% in 1992
and to around 25% in 1995 for single posters. It appears that the evidence of this
steep decline is even more pronounced over a year. Posting only once then seems to
indicate that it is quite unlikely the person will still be posting over any long range of
time.

Trends with multiple (2) and (3) posting participants aren't clear though in
general both Show a higher duration than single posters and lower than those who
post four or more times. The multiple (2) posters show approximately double the
longevity that the single posters do at the one year range. Though in Figure 5.24 the
multiple (2) and multiple (3) categories are separated to examine possible trends, they
are grouped for charting, as it is more likely they point at a single class of poster than
separate Classes. As with other categories of posters, the forward longevity toward
1996 is greater than the reverse longevity.

The multiple (4+) category shows very interesting results, with over double
the duration rate of any other category at the one year range and higher results at
most other posting times as well. Even at several years from the base month, the
Multiple (4+) category seems to show some effect beyond a residual 26% which may
indicate this is phenomena of increased posting levels is worth further studying. It

would appear the posting of at least 4 times, a participant evidences a sufficient

130

commitment to the list or participation that ongoing involvement for at least a year

can be assumed (though a drop-off or 20-50% is still seen in this category.)

Summary, Conclusions and Areas for further Study of Duration

Overall, there were few overlapping participants in Nov. 1992 and Nov. 1995.
The general posting patterns were quite similar, showing a typical pattern of shift in
participants over time, and typical patterns within frequency categories of posters.
This lends credence to the conclusion that t0pic and general setup of the list plus the
small number of continuing posters are sufficient to largely influence the dynamics of
the list.

More frequent posting seems to predict a higher percentage of repeat posters
in the future. Posting in the present appears to indicate more strongly that a person
will post in the future than that the person did post in the past.

Areas for Further Study

November 1992 and November 1995 show some differences. Some of the
following questions could be analyzed. Was there a gradual shift or an abrupt one?
What events precipitated these Changes? Was it only the general increase in Internet

participation, or were other important factors involved?

In addition to the charts included here, one could chart:
0 Additional continuity, especially at 2 , 3 and 6 months.
0 Continuity from week to week

0 Continuity via other set # of message spans, rather than time spans.

 

d! J...‘-- _-

 

131

0 Continuity via other categories, such as gender, location/ node, and those who
ask specific kinds of questions, or generate specific kinds of postings.
0 Variation in reduction rates during different spans of time.

0 Differences in reduction patterns among different types of posters.

From the November 1995 data, it appears that study of duration for more
than 2 years isn't very useful, since the amount of overlap in participants beyond 2
years is so low. Study of the types of messages of those who do remain might be
useful though.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6

CONTENT

Overview

In this chapter the activity on EDTECH is analyzed from the point of
view of messages and their content, describing the number of postings per topic.
In particular there is a look in greater depth at categories of postings seen on the

list and how they compare at two different points in time.

 

 

l General Organization of Content Chapter

* Overview '

v !

 

 

 

   

 

 

l Topics and Definitions of
l Categories

1 W l i

1' Initial vs. Broadcast vs. 1 specific Analysis of

l Reaponse Postings l Topic Categories

   

 

Figure 6.1 - Overview

 

132

 

 

 

133

In the study there is a focus on groups or threads of messages initiated in
each of the target months and their continuations, if the conversations
continued during the ensuing month. Also considered are all messages posred

during certain periods of time in the month, regardless of when the

conversation was initiated.

Consideration is given to the intent, commitment or general
conversational thrust of groups of messages by making distinctions similar to
certain of the ones put forward by Flores and Winograd (1997), and observing
how the percentages of messages in categories differ over time. The reason for
doing a more in—depth analysis of classes of messages with different intent is to
attempt to expand beyond a single-list/ subject context and offer insights that
may more readily apply to additional lists. From looking at topics covered, one
can get a general notion of the type of list it is. What happens on the list as it
might relate to what happens on scholarly lists with a different purpose is not as

clear without observing a list at a level beyond the stated subjects of the

messages.

 

 

 

134

Number of Postings Per Topic

One of the more interesting considerations in studying content on an e-
mail list is the number of responses that any given topic of discussion generates.
This section offers an overview of what was discussed on EDTECH and how
extensive the discussion was on each subject. In order to give the reader a
general picture of what was being discussed in November 1992 and 1995, the
messages in each sample period were grouped by subject and arranged in tables
according to the number of messages in each discussion thread (see Figures 6.4 -

6.8). Figures 6.2 and 6.3 summarize this information on numbers of postings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

per topic.
Number of Postings per Topic
(Topics Initiated in November 1992)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12+
72 12 5 3 4 4 3 0 1 0 0 4
(Topics Initiated in November 1995)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12+
110 55 30 21 9 1O 7 2 4 3 5 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.2 - Summary of Number of Postings per Topic

 

 

 

135

 

 

Number of Postings per Topic

 

 

 

_s
_s
O

.._.—, __‘.“— H—b ‘—-—-—

§

 

 

8

Le.vel of Response 4 ‘
8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60~ - ‘ -
1 .1992
‘ .1995 ——————i

 

 

 

 

pics at Eire-i1“
8
l

 

 

 

 

Number of To
8

 

‘ I‘xktxfivzé'
.‘ .

o, .i - .
s 6 7 8 91011124-

I—
N
U

A

Number of Messages per Topic

Figure 6.3 - Comparison of Postings per Topic 1992 8: 1995

 

 

Figure 6.3 shows that most topics received no or limited response

on the EDTECH list itself, though it appears that by 1995 a greater percentage

of topics were receiving higher numbers of responses, possibly due to increase

 

 

 

 

136

in list size or the increasing willingness of participants to engage in more

lengthy discussions.

 

l EDTECH — Topics with 4 or more messages
that began in November 1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Raising national IO (23) l 1. Software to format documents (6)

2. DOS BACKUP ( I7) 12. Statistic package (6)

3. Simple/cheap laserdisc control software 13. Another lurker comes in from the cold (5)
for PC? (15) 14. Kodak CD-ROM (5)

4. Bibliography software (12) 15. MMEDIA-L Address (5)

5. Toolbook (9) 16. Technology plans solicited (5)

6. Cable TV on Campus (7) 17. A new LCD panel (4)

7. Non-Systems ID Approaches (7) 18. APPLE IIGS Network (4)

8. QuickTime (7) 19. How are Notebook Computers Used? (4)

9. Distance ed (6)

10. Literature Programs (6) j

EDTECH -- Topics with 2 or 3 messages 1
i that began in November 1992

l. Hypercard on IBM (3) 9. Macintosh System and Finder (2)

2. Listserv List (3) 10. Myers-Briggs personality assessment (2)

3. Steve Ehrman's address (3) I I. Quickie Scanner (2)

4. Video on use/application of overhead 12. Teacher Introductions list (2)
projector (3) 13. Technical Review, K - 12(2)

5. Videodisc and the PC (3) 14. Telephone Bridge (2)

6. Assistance in e-mail privacy research 15. The Macintosh Desktop Metaphor (2)
(from CMC) (2) 16. University Copyright Policy (2)

7. Clipart wanted for biology (2) l7. VITA Distribution Service (2)

8. NAPLPS (2)

 

 

 

Figure 6.4 - Topics with 2, 3 and 4 or More Messages, 1992

137

 

EDTECH - Single (no response) Topics
That began in November 1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QMPP’NT‘

N

10.
1,1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

l8.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.
33.
34.

35.
36.

"*FTP to Apple Computer"

.zip files

accessing ERIC on the lntemet

ANN ENBERG ANNOUNCES: (fwd)
ARACHNET - Journal of Virtual Culture
Bibliography of Introductory Readings
for Network Novice (fwd)

Call for Papters

CALL FOR PAPERS & CALL FOR
GUEST EDITORS- S&G

Call for reviewers (from LM_NET)
CancerNet info (fwd)

Democracy

ENTOMO-L (fwd)

ERIC DIGEST (from NETI'RAIN) (fwd)
ERIC DIGEST (from NETTRAIN) (fwd)
Expansion on Mac Classic II

F ull-motion video boards

F ull-text ERIC Digests - now available
for IBM PCs (from LM-NET)
Hypercard and Student Assistants
Information request: grad programs
Internet Users' Glossary

IVD software

JEMH & MM Review souces

Leading Edge UserGroup Info Sought
List Change: New Home for IPEnet
Mac Backup and other Mac Topics
Multimedia Chem Labs

Need help on OzTex

NetPower Snapshot # 4 new (fwd)
Networked Based CBT

NET IPEnet (from DEVEL-L)

Net List: Adv-Eli Latest Advances on
Electric Engineering (fwd)

New List: Adv-Info Latest Computing
Advances Net List:

AFRICANA Information Technology
and Africa

NET LIST: e-jml for a/v librarianship
NET LIST: Ednet (from NET-LIST)
NET LIST: PCORPS-L Peace Corps
Discussion List (from NET-LIST)

 

37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47'.
48.
49.

50.
51.
52.

53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

59.
60.
61.
62.
63.

64.
65.
66.

67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.

New Ph.D. Program

New York Network Connections

NeXT CDROM Software Sampler (fwd)
November Hunt (from NETTRAIN)
November Hunt Results -1 of 4
November Hunt Results - 2 of 4
November Hunt Results - 3 of 4
November Hunt Results - 4 of 4
O-Reilly (from HELP-NET)

Please elaborate about VERONICA
Pointing device

POPMail PC Version 3.0 now available
Position Announcement, University of
Houston

PSI/CBT?CAI on the topic lntemet
QuarkXpress

Query - Are Intro to CS courses still
worthwhile?

Recent Uploads to Libsoft (2/1 “92)
Recent Uploads to Libsoft ( l l/ 1 1/92)
Recent Uploads to Libsoft (24/1 1/92)
Request for Information

Review of Krol, "The Whole Internet"
Review of LaQuey, "The lntemet
Companion" (from NETI‘RAIN)
Reviews of courseware

Sony DIH-Z l 00?

SPECIAL INTERNET CONNECTIONS
Speech Synthesis unit

Technology and persons with Disabilities
Conference (from KIDSNET)
Telecommuting Survey (from PACS-L)
Tenure Track IT Position Available
The American Women's Trans-Antarctic
Expedition (AWE)

The Commonwealth of Learning

The scope of educational technology
To LOGO teachers

Updated lntemet Services List (fwd)
URBNET Help Needed

Veronica: an Archie for Gopher (from
HELP-NET)

 

Figure 6.5 - Topics with a Single Message, 1992

 

 

 

 

 

138

 

EDTECH — T0pics with 4 or more messages
that began in November 1995

 

 

 

 

l.
2
3.
4.
5
6

>3

10.
11.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
l6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

MAC versus PC/Windows Platforms (30) 33. Latest Eudora for Windows? (6)

Should schools declare a platform (27) 34. Power mac 5200/75 (6)

Desktop protection for Windows (13) 35. Guide for HyperStudio (6)

Is 19.2 Kbps Fastest Speed? ( 12) 36. Alternative Input Devices (5)

Image-Writer with Mac(11) 37. ESL Software (5)

Techn. Requirement for teaching 38. MAC versus PC/Windows Platfonns

credential? ( l 1) 39. Macintosh 520c or 540C? (5)

Urgent- Virus problem- B Tree Leaf?? (1 l) 40. Macs with PC capability (5)

Shareware Screen Capture Program for 41. PCI bus (5)

Windows (1 l) 42. Postscript files (5)

Help finding grade program (11) 43. Problems with PowerMac 7200? (5)

School Web Pages (10) 44. Technology Curriculum (5)

Need Help with PhoneNets (10) 45 . Apple lIe Computers (4)

Alphasmart Keyboards (10) 46. Are Acceptable use Policies Really

What is the best typing skill tutorial? (9) Necessary (4)

On Site Technology Staff? (9) 47. Automatic Tum-On with Mac Eudora &

Web Servers (9) PPP (4)

lntemet contracts (9) 48. Computer Lab Furniture (4)

Throughput on standard phone line (8) 49. Connecting to the lntemet (4)

Home Page for our College (8) 50. Easy E-Mail Projects (4)

Video Editing (7) 51. Endnote Plus Info (4)

Wanted: HyperStudio Guide (7) 52. Garbage gif images (4)

ClarisWorks (Mac) 4.0v2 updater (7) 53. Help uploading using Claris Works (4)

Norton Utilities or MacTools? (7) 54. HELP! Cross-platform question (4)

Windows NT Listserv (7) 55. Interference on screen (4)

Static electricity and keyboard freeze (7) 56. Keyboarding devices (4)

Computer to TV Adapter (7) 57. Listservs for Novel] (4)

Automatic shut down problem (6) 58. MAC LC630+486 (4)

Are Fiber Optics Necessary to Meet Future 59. Mac networks & CD-Towers (4)

Needs? (6) 60. MAC/lntemet/phones etc (4)

Backups of Microsoft diskettes (6) 61. Middle School CAD Program (4)

Clarisworks printing (6) 62. NASA program (4)

Windows 95 security (6) 63. Netscape for Windows 95 (4)

Network Security (6) 64. Unpartitioning pc hd (4)

More on AT&T lntemet (6) 65. Wireless/remote mice and teaching (fwd)
(4)

 

 

Figure 6.6 - Topics with 4 or More Messages, November 1995

 

 

 

 

139

 

 

 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDTECH - Topics with 2 or 3 messages
that began in November 1995
1. Cache Size? (3) 42. Computer systems upgrades in schools (2)
2. Computer Carts (3) 43. Critical Thinking and Technology (2)
3. Computers with math curriculum (3) 44. First Class BBS (2)
4. Contaminated chooser (3) 45. Help w/PC & Wiring School for lntemet (2)
5. Distance Education for Students with 46. Install problems - MS Works (2)
Disabilities (3) 47 . Interactive CD Technology (2)
6. DOS on the Net? (3) 48. Junk in Recovered Files (2)
7. Fiber to the Classroom (3) 49. Lantastic Listserv? (2)
8. Growing System file (3) 50. LC 5200 Problems w/Print Shop (2)
9. High School Astronomy Course (3) 51. LC5200 (2)
10. High School Home Page (3) 52. LEGO/Logo (2)
11. lifx Hard Drive Source (3) 53. Looking for Listserv or Newsgroup (2)
12. lntemet Access PPP (3) 54. LOW Tech and What do I do with it? (2)
13. lntemet at lower-grade secondary schools (3) 55. Mac AV to TV Question (2)
14. lntemet Hookup outside USA (Chile) (3) 56. Mac multimedia suggestions (fwd) (2)
15. Looking for Library lntemet Access (3) 57. Math curriculum in computer lab (2)
16. Mac Boot Problem (3) 58. Mathematics Software Help (2)
17. Mac Questions (3) 59. Me Two, ResEdit, ARA (2)
18. Merging Two Databases (3) 60. Netiquette (2)
19. Multimedia Course Information (3) 61. Netscape 2.0 for Mac problems (2)
20. Need help w/Global Village (3) 62. Netscape error (2)
21. Networked Quadra660AV freezing-help (3) 63. Online Credit Courses (2)
22. New lomega JAZ Drive (3) 64. Oracle agrees with me about low tech! (2)
23. Printer Problems (3) 65. Out Based EducationCurriculum? (2)
24. Scientific Problem Solving (3) 66. PC Graphing Package? (2)
25. Scope and Sequence of Technology 67. PCs, MAC's & CD Tower (2)
Curriculums (3) 68. Procedures for Delivering AN Equipment to
26. SQL Server for PowerMac (3) Classrooms (2)
27. Technology Plans (3) 69. Public Access Television Policy (2)
28. TOWS-A literary Magazine for 4'“-6"‘ Graders 70. lntemet access (2)
(3) 71. Reading EdCen News with NewsWatcher?? (2)
29. Using powerbooks in the Lab (3) 72. Rick Steenblick (2)
30. Wanted: Stragegies for using technology to 73. Science telecourses or interactive technology
teach K6 (3) utilization (2)
31. Windows HTML Editors (3) 74. Seeking K-6 Science Curriculums (2)
32. 14.4k modems (2) ‘75. Seeking Spanish language penpals (2)
33. ASL Font? (2) 76. Slick network cable and downtime (2)
34. AT&T Plans School-lntemet Link (2) 77. Student use of intemet?? (2)
3S. Automation Software for Small Research 78. Teaching PowerPoint/2 hrs. (2)
Libraries (2) 79. Technology Attitude Surveys (2)
36. Batteries (2) 80. The art of WW mirroring (2)
37. Call for Presentations - Technology in the 21" 81. The Tl-92 calculator (2)
Century (2) 82. Translation Software (2)
38. Chameleon Sticking Its Tongue Out (2) 83. Web Page Creation Curriculum, high school (2)
39. Chancery Software or CNS info? (2) 84. What Are These Lines: Windows 3.11 Experts
40. Change Mac MenuBar (2) (2)
41. Computer Classes Sought (2) 85. Which UPS(2)

 

Figure 6.7 - Topics with 2 or 3 Messages, November 1995

 

 

 

 

 

140

 

EDTECH - Single (no response) Topics
That began in November 1995

 

99.55039:-

8.
9

 

   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
  

10.
ll.
12.
13.

14.
15.
l6.
l7.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

30.
3 1 .
Sofiware?

32. Hypermedia for adults-recommendations
33. I need feedback about automated test scoring

""NEW Net-happenings address‘"
1,500 School Web Sites on Web66
11X17 Printers under $1000-help
24 Hours in Cyberspace>Feb.8
3D Lighting Design:
Any bibliography manager better than
Endnote?
Any helpful musical/computer techheads out
there?
Apple Portrait on 6200CD?
Apple Work Group Server 80 Sad Mac Codes
Attention Teachers of English
Automatic dialing by PPP
Caching proxy servers???
CAI/CBI/CBA Practice in Elementary Special
Ed
Calcomp High Speed Plotter
Claris Web Site
Clarislmpact-grad in the weeds. . .Help please
Class Inclusion
Classroom Connect lnfobot revised...
Comp/lntemet Club Mailing List
Conference: New Media Expo/Jan30-3l
Developing an AOL Educaional Guide
Dr. Suess CD ROM
Earthquake preparedness
Education Help with Tech. For People with
Disabilities
Entry Assessment Test
Eudora Dial Up
Geographic Information Systems Users
Getting on in Chile
Grad Ed. Tech. Programs at New Mexico
State
Graduate School: English/Multimedia
How to Use Majordomo or Other List

systems

34. Info on HP-SL printer requested
35. Innovations I Connectivity Exposition
36. Installing new hard drive
37. lntemet Access Mac 8500
38. lntemet E—mail Project
39. Introduction: Amber Culbertson
40. Iomega tech support
41. K12 School Servers - Use Policies Requested
42. Language Acquisition and Tech

43.
44.

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
S4.
55.
56.
57.
58.

59.
60.
61 .
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.

68.

69.
70.

71.

72.
73.

74.

 

 

 

 

75.

76.

77.

78.
79.
80.
81.

82

LC III Freeze with ethemet
List of NSF Projects to Further Disability
Involvement

Looking for a copy of Netscape 2.0b1
Looking for VCR software

Mac Powerbook 5300cs/100

Mac problems-please help!

MAC use of MS Mail on a novel! server
Macro viruses

Manipulating Printers in Windows
Math & Sci Reform-FREE Satellite TV
Microsoft Works Install Work-Around
Monitors
NASA's Online from Jupiter Project
Need K—8 English language program
Netscape Lan/Wan access
New mailing list about Acceptable Use
Policies!
New Mich. Dept of Education WWW Pages
New Web Page for NSBA's ITTE
Newsgroup for Administration
Nutrition is Science Course
Onsite Technology Staff?
PBS High Stakes in Cyberspace
Plan to Attend LET'I‘96
Plato

Position: Assistant Professor of Instructional
Technology
Position: Assistant Professor, Instructional
Design & Technology
Position: AV Manager at MIT
Position: Coordinator of Inst. Technology-U.
of N. Carolina
Position: Educational Technology Specialist-
Michigan
Position: Instructional Designer-PSU
Position: Instructional Multimedia Producer-
PSU
Position: Technology Coordinator
Positions: Faculty, Learning Sciences,
Northwestern University
Positions: Instructional Technology Faculty -
Texas
PPP Server
Professional Development
Public Access vs. Local Origination
RamDoubler Problems
Recommendations for Multimedia Lab
. Recycling old Computers

 

 

 

141

 

EDTECH - Single (no response) Topics
That began in November 1995 (continued)

 

 

83.
84.
85.

86.

87.
88.
89.
90.
91.

Request for Distance Learning Info.
Request for Greetings

Request for Greetings: Health Care
Informatics Course

Request for Surveys on Academic Computer
Needs

Scanner and Video Conferencing

Sitcomm

Site-Based Education WWW (fwd)

Some EDTECH Mail Lost -- Please Resend
Teacher Resources (forward)

 

92. Teaching About Space Travel?

93. File and Printer Sharing Systems“

94. Tech. In school-Wall Street Journal

95. Technical positions?

96. Technologies for School/Home Connection

97. Technology Coor. Job description/
qualifications

98. The EVERY student laptop

99. Where to get books on the net?

100. Wonderful Educational Web Site

101.WWW>AERA Web Site Address

 

Figure 6.8 - Topics with a Single Message, November 1995

Topics

There are literally thousands of ways the content of a list could be

divided up - content specific or general. It is very difficult to make

comparisons of different times when presented with the raw data showing just

the subjects of the postings. For purposes of this study, list content was studied

in two basic but potentially important ways. First, a highly content specific

approach was used - assigning messages to topic categories that were appropriate

to the general theme of the list (plus one miscellaneous category). This system

of classification would undoubtedly be different for a list where different subject

matter was discussed. Second, the primary purpose of the message in terms of

whether it initiated .a discussion, responded to an already initiated topic, or

 

142

broadcast a message without the intent to start a discussion, was quantified for
the messages in each category of the samples.
For general purposes of classification, the following topics will be used:

Application Software

Curriculum design, classroom strategy and activities
Internet software, sites 8L resources

Research, positions, schools 8: professional development
Policy and philosophy

Operating systems

Hardware

LAN S, Servers 8: Internet connections

Administrative 8L miscellaneous

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of EDTECH Content, November 1992

Category Total °/o Initial Response Broadcast
Application Software 58 213% 13 45 0
Curriculum 11 4.0% 4 7 0
lntemet software, Sites 8: 22 8.1% 6 14 2
resources
Research, positions,
schools 85 professional 18 6.6% 4 10 4
development
Policy and philosophy 46 15.9% 4 42 0
Operating Systems 33 12.1% 4 26 3
Hardware 35 12.9% 10 25 0
LANS, Servers 86 5 1.8% 3 2 0
lntemet connections
yet'fhppenmgs 33 14.0% o o 38

ostrngs

Admin. 8: MISC. 6 2.2% 2 4 0 ‘
T‘ml 272 100.0% 51 174 47 \

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.9 - Summary of EDTECH Content, November 1992

Figure 6.9 summarizes the frequency with which various categories of
postings were discussed in November 1992. Since the 38 Net-Happenings
broadcast postings influenced various ether percentage measurements rather
substantially, it was decided to remove them to make a better comparison. The
38 postings consisted of one (3%) about application software, 21 (55%) about

Internet software, sites and resources, ten (26%) about research and conferences

and six (15%) about curriculum and teaching related subjects. It is intereSting to

144

nete the activities of gathering groups of information on the Internet and

broadcasting their availability was already Strongly underway in 1992, an

activity that would shortly be extended greatly by the advent of the WWW.

 

EDTECH Content, November 1992 -- Outlier Not Used

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Total % Initial Response Broadcast
Application Software 58 24.8% 13 45 0
Curriculum 11 4.7% 4 7 0
lntemet software, srtes 22 94% 6 14 2
85 resources
Research, positions,
schools 8C professional 18 7.7% 4 10 4
development
Policy and phiIOSOphy 46 197% 42 0
Operating Systems 33 141% 26
Hardware 35 15.0% 10 25 0 \
was... 5 3 2 o 1
nternet connections
Admin. 8: Misc. 6 2.6% 2 4 0
Tom 234 100.0% 51 174 9

_—-—————
”__'—__'

 

Figure 6.10 - Summary of November 1992 Content (outlier removed)

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDTECH Content, November 1995 - First 14 Days

Category Total % Initial Response Broadcast
Application SOfiwarC 25 76% 1O 15 0
Curriculum 30 9.2% 14 13 3
Internet software, srtes 28 8.6% 5 18 5
8L resources
Research, positions,
schools 8: professional 22 6.7% 7 9 6
Develcmment
Policy 8?. philosophy 57 17.4% 5 52 0
Operating Systems 42 12.8% 10 32 0
Hardware 54 16.5% 15 39 o
LANS’ Servers 8‘ 65 19.9% 17 74 0
Internet connections 1 1
Admin. 86 Misc. 4 1.2% 2 0 j 2 \
Tm” 327 85 l 226 j 16 j

 

 

 

Figure 6.11 - Summary of November 1995 Content (first 14 days)
Only the first 14 days of November 1995 EDTECH were considered

here, since these represented a number of messages roughly equivalent to the
whole of November 1992. It was felt that samples of about 300 messages should
be sufficient to indicate any major contrasts between the two months and
perhaps give a more accurate comparison than two samples more disparate in
size might. Figure 6.12 shows these comparisons in chart format to make the

contrasts easier to detect.

 

146

 

 

 

   

Content Comparison _g 7, . ,
ElNov. 1992
25% / , 7 7 7, 7, 7, fl , 'NOV‘1995
20%. " 7
15% ”
10%

 

 

 

 

5% I
0%. >4 an
o a — o
= E ~§Qéeisg a “E“.
5 '5 age: has. 3 £3.53
a. u 0e 1..» .0“ 1..- 7: '-
o ': ‘51» «a :2 0g, 1.. <3 E:
w s '2 it: 83 8“” E " ‘
D an. “ N=234Nav.1992Nhosages
N=327Nov.1995Maesages

 

Figure 6.12 - Comparison of Categories of Messages Sent During Nov. 1992 8:
the First 2 Weeks of Nov. 1995

 

Though Figure 6.12 gives a good general indication of the comparative
differences between the different categories of topic, it does not show what was
actually talked about on the list. A more detailed definition and breakdown of
the contents of each category, which will go in more depth about what was

actually being said and how that changed, follows.

 

147

Application Software

 

Application Software Summary

 

 

 

 

# of Postings % of sample Inquiry/ Response Ratio
NOV. 1992 58 25.2 °/o 13/ 45
Nov. 1995 25 7.6 °/o 10/ 15

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.13 - Application Software Summary

This category encompasses discussion of various application software
packages, excluding Internet related and operating system software. It includes
questions about names of software, how to find particular packages and requests
for more information on specific software. It also contains discussions on how
to use different types of software and questions regarding what to do about
various problems using software packages. This particular category of messages
exists since one of the major functions of EDTECH is to serve as a network for
finding out what to do about a wide variety of problems that educators might
encounter obtaining and using software applications in educational settings.
These messages discuss the sorts of problems and questions that educators might
have when working with specific applications. The category does not include
methods of teaching these applications or consider their impact on curriculum,
but instead to reflect the extent to which educators seek help or information on
the applications they might be using themselves.

Operating systems were excluded from this category, as it was felt that,

though related, the operating system itself and the problems encountered with

148

regard to using it requires a different level of understanding and expertise in
many ways than that required by someone who is attempting to use specific
software. Some questions related to the operating system are in fact close to
application software questions, but a distinction was attempted. As well, some
lntemet-related application questions were placed in the Internet resources
section, rather than in this application software secrion. This was done in order
to attempt to create a category that would provide insight into the problems
and needs of educators with respect to using the lntemet in educational settings.
It was felt that the applications and the Internet resources that could be accessed
by using them belonged in a separate group from applications that can be used
with no Internet access.

Application Software: 1992

Of the 58 messages related to application software posted in November
1992, 56 (97%) were inquiries and responses about where to locate a software
package, questions about what software package to use for a certain purpose,
and requests for more information about specific programs. Two posters (3%)
discussed how to do a specific task or solve a problem using a software package.

Overall there were 13 inquiries (22%) and 45 responses (78%) with no
broadcast messages after the outlier was removed. The more frequently

discussed types of applications (by percentage of the tatal) included:

149

research oriented (bibliographic, statistical and formatting) (38%)
laserdisk control software (22%)

hypertext (Linkway, Hypercard and Toolbook) (16%)

video applications (Quicktime) (12%)

clipart (3 0/0)

Application Software: 1995

Of the 25 application software messages in the November 1995 sample,

18 (72%) were general questions and responses about where to locate a Specific

software package, what software to use for a specific function or requests for

more information about given software. 7 (28%) requested help with a problem

using software or advice on how to perform a specific task. There were 10

inquiries (40%), 15 responses (60%) and no broadcast messages. The types of

software discussed included

research oriented (bibliographic) (16%)
graphing (24%)

translation (8%)

merging databases (12%)

Printshop problems (8%)

 

150

The longest conversation in this group was a request for a
recommendation for a graphing package that the curriculum director of a
school wanted, with a number of suggestions in reply.

Application Software: comparison and discussion

Though the W was just being invented and so was not reflected in
the November 1992 postings, it's interesting to n0te that a number of messages
refer to hypertexting software and Quicktime, technology uses that were soon
to have a wider audience in the WWW. Most conversations are of the form "I
would like software that does ”X". Does anyone know the name of it or where
I can locate it?" In both months, this category was mainly used for product
referrals, reviews and recommendations. It was similar in some ways to and
interactive journal or magazine dedicated to helping make purchasing decisions

and educate about available software resources.

 

 

 

 

 

Curriculum
Curriculum Summary
. In ' / R onse/ Broadcast
# of Postings % of sample quiry CSRJatio
Nov. 1992 11 4.3% 4/7/0
Nov. 1995 30 9.2% 14/13/3

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.14 - Summary of Curriculum Messages

151
Curriculum: 1992.

In November 1992 there were 11 messages related to the broad category
of curriculum. These included 4 (36%) inquiries, 7 (67%) responses and no
broadcast messages. The types of topics discussed included:

0 Teaching online and distance education (27%)
0 Lesson plans, projects 8C teaching units (9%)
0 Administrative software 8!. ideas (9%)

0 Where to find teaching resources like videos, texts, etc. (27%)

0 Raising student IQ's (27%)

Specific topics that were discussed included techniques for delivering
satellite distance education courses, where to locate videos on how to use
overhead projecrors and discussion of a report that Japan had raised its national
IQ by 15 points since 1950.

Curriculum: 1995

There were 30 messages related to curriculum in the first 2 weeks of
November 1995. Of these 14 (47%) were inquiries, 13 (43%) were responses and
two (7%) were broadcast messages.

The curriculum issues discussed included:

0 Teaching online (7%)

0 Lesson plans, projects and strategies (33%)

152

0 Technology curriculums (30%)
0 Keypals (13%)

0 Teaching problem solving (10%)
0 Testing (3%)

O Lego/ logo (3%)

The specific topics considered in some of the longer threads include a
request by someone for input on what a technology curriculum for K-12 should
include and several responses giving experiences and feedback. There were also
many messages related to lesson plans needed or projects begun.

Curriculum: comparison 8: discussion

By percentage, there were twice the postings in this category in 1995 as
there were in 1992. There appears to be a decided shift in emphasis and interest
between the two years. In 1992 most discussions revolved around teaching
online, distance education and where to find teaching resources like videos. By
1995, participants put much‘more emphasis on specific lesson plans and
designing technology curriculums. This may reflect the growing feeling in
school districts that teachers should be using technology in their classes and

mandates by government that plans he in place to assure that technology is

appropriately taught.

 

 

153

Internet-related Software and Resources

 

Internet-related Software 8c Resources Summary

 

 

 

 

 

# of Postings % (of sample lnqmry/Rezponse/Broadcast
atio
N CV. 1992 22 8.1 0/o 6/ 14/ 2
Nov. 1995 28 8.6 % 5/18/5

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.15 - Summary of Internet-related Messages

This category includes messages related to client software used to access
information on the Internet, such as e-mail packages, WWW browsers, FTP
software and other similar applications. It also includes messages that contain
questions or information about resources that can be found on the Internet,
including WW sites, email lists, files and Other resources. It does not cover
servers, as it was thought that most server questions would be of a different
nature than questions about information on the lntemet and how to access it.
In general, if an lntemet site or resource was given as a specific response to a
question that itself was in a different category, that response was placed in the
same category as the initial question. 50 messages in this category would be
those that address the Internet program or resource primarily, and nor simply as
a response related to a discussion on some other tepic.

Internet-related: 1992

In November 1992 there were 20 lntemet-related messages including

seven inquiries (3 5%), 13 responses (65%) and 2 broadcast messages (10%).

These included the following topics:

 

154

0 Files and resources in the lntemet (not including WWW sites) (35%)
0 E-mail lists and e-mail journals (60%)

0 Client software, downloading and compression (5%)

This category did not tend to generate discussion or debate. The longer
specific conversations were held on how to get a list of all the listservs that exist,
' what address the Mmedia-L list has, and where to find files that contain teacher
introductions. They consisted of a brief question and several people supplying
the requested information.
lntemet-related: 1995

In the November 1995 sample there were 28 Internet-related messages,
including 5 inquiries (18%), 18 responses (64%) and 5 broadcast messages (18%).
20 (71%) requested information or location of resources, 8 (29%) discussed how
to use a product or resource or worked on troubleshooting a problem with it.
These messages included discussion of:

0 Specific WW sites (50%)

0 WW browsers (18%)

0 HTML or WWW page editors (14%)

0 lntemet client software other than W (14%)

0 Resources other than WW sites on the Internet (4%)

 

155

The longest discussion was from a school that was beginning to design its
WW pages asking people to tell it about some excellent school pages to view
to get ideas. Seven people posted recommendations of good school WW
pages or reference sites.

Internet-related: comparison and discussion

It is obvious that there would not have been much mention of the
W in November of 1992, as it was just being invented. Still, it is intereSting
to see how discussions of various aspects of the WW essentially appear to
have superceded discussion of Other issues relating to the Internet by 1995. Not
only does discussion of WW related issues appear on EDTECH in 1995, but
discussion of other matters drops to less than 20% of the traffic in this category.
It is probable that most of the resources that were previously found elsewhere
have begun to move to the W by 1995. The substantial decrease in
discussion about email lists and journals by 1995 reflect the fact that an
increasing number of pe0p1e were finding some of the benefits of e-mail lists
available in other formats on the WWW. It is also likely that they had begun
locating groups they did need via WWW search sites rather than by posting
messages on lists like EDTECH. This may indicate that not only was there
interest in the WW, but its availability supplanted most discussions by

educators on Other aspects of the lntemet.

 

 

156

Research and Professional Development

 

Research and Professional Development Summary

 

 

 

 

 

# of Postings % of sample Inquiry/Reslpptriize/Broadcast
Nov. 1992 18 6.6 % 4/ 10/ 4
Nov. 1995 22 6.7% 7/ 9/ 6

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.16 - Summary of Research and Professional Development

The research and professional development category is for messages
related to more academic work in the area of educational technology. Though a
good proportion of EDTECH traffic deals with trouble shooting practical
problems, one of the main original intents for the list was that it also be a place
for graduate students to find others to collaborate with, and for researchers to
share their work. This category includes postings related to positions-either
position announcements or discussions of position descriptions and
consideration of technical staff jobs. In it as well are calls for papers and
requests for collaboration on research projects. Since for most educators,
professional development is an integral part of their work, requests for
information about various graduate programs and professional development
opportunities are included in this area too.

Research and Professional Development: 1992
In November of 1992 there were 18 messages in the Research and

Professional Development category. Four (22%) were inquiries, 10 (56%)

157

responded to inquiries and four (22%) were broadcasr announcements not

intended to generate a discussion. The main categories discussed included:

Positions—offered, discussed or described (11%)

Conference announcements and Calls for Papers (6%)

Research papers and books—requests for help on or references (67%)
Credentials and degrees-Ph.D.‘s, Masters 8: professional development
(17%)

Technical staff and staffing (0%)

One of the longer discussions was about a request for sources that would

be helpful in an instructional design paper that used non-systems approaches. ‘

Many of the inquiries asked for clarification, but others offered references in the

area. A second more serious discussion related to a request that others help

define issues to be examined in a transcript of distance education course

discussions. Most of the other threads in this area were short inquiries or

broadcast messages.

Research and Professional Development: 1995

In the first two weeks of November 1995 there were 22 messages in the

Research and Professional Development category posted to EDTECH. Of

these seven (32%) were inquiries, nine (41%) were responses and six (27%) were

158

broadcast messages not intended to generate a discussion. The main subject
areas discussed included the following:

0 Positions—offered, discussed or described (41%)

0 Research papers and books (18%)

O Credentials and degrees—Ph.D.‘s, Masters 8C professional development

(27%)

0 Technical staff and staffing (14%)

The longest discussion in this time frame was around a request for opinions
on what technology courses should be required to get a teaching credential and
what technology skills would be best for teachers to have. There was also a
thread on what technology staff would be most appropriate for a school district
to have. In the sample period in November 1995, there were many position
announcements and other broadcasts, and few additional discussions in the
research and professional development area.

Research and Professional Development: comparison and discussion

By percentage, the Research and Professional Development categories in
1992 and 1995 were remarkable similar as to volume, differing only by one-
tenth of a percent. The topics discussed were different between the two months
though. In 1992 two-thirds of the messages dealt with writing and research. By

1995 the emphasis was much more strongly on positions and credentials. This

159

may reflect trends in society during the time frame of the study, or it may be
attributable to other factors, such as additional email lists and resources

available for those who want information or collaborators on research they are

 

 

 

 

 

conducting.
Policy and Philosophy
Policy and Philos0phy Summary
# of Postings % of sample Inquiry/Reslpptriige/Broadcast
Nov. 1992 46 16.9 % 4/42/0
Nov. 1995 57 17.4 % 5/52/0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.17 - Summary of Policy and Philosophy
Policy and philosophy is a category for some of EDTECH's more

lengthy debates. It is an area for bringing up planning techniques, definitions,
general technology policy, and debates about the nature and potential best ways
to use technology in education overall.

Policy and Philosophy: 1992

In November of 1992 there were 46 messages in the Policy and
Philosophy category. Of these, four (9%) were inquiries and 42 (91%) were
responses to the messages of others.

0 Technology plans and mission statements (17%)
0 Education and virtual reality (48%)

0 Copyright policy (4%)

 

160
0 Multimedia definitions (17%)

0 How are notebook computers used practically? (7%)
0 Are Introduction to Computing courses worthwhile? (2%)
0 Misc. (4%)

The longest discussion in November 1992 was on the possible uses and
benefits of virtual reality in education. Though it accounted for nearly half of
the messages in November, the discussion actually began in October. This was
a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion about the medium of virtual reality
itself, and what how its development may affect teachers and students in the
future. The multimedia definitions discussion was related, in that it discussed
not only virtual reality, but multimedia in general and its potential impact on
teaching.

Policy and Philosophy: 1995

There were 57 EDTECH messages on policies or philosophies relating to
educational technology during the first two weeks of November 1995. Of
these, five (9%) were inquiries and 52 (91%) were responses and discussion about
a topic someone had already started. The main topics the messages dealt with
are summarized below.

0 Acceptable Use Policies (5%)

0 Mission statements, technology plans and needs assessments (9%)

161
0 High tech vs. low tech. (32%)

0 Should schools declare a platform? (35%)
0 Is one computer on the Internet better than none? (18%)
0 Should every student have a laptop? (2%)
0 Should CAI be instituted in all schools? (2%)
Though one of the longest discussions in November 1995, the "high tech.
vs. low tech." thread actually started in October. In total it was comprised of 31
messages by 19 different individuals. This is a recurring thread in EDTECH
from the earliest days of the list, and tends to draw out opposing views about
what the optimum use of technology, especially more sophisticated technology
is in education. The "Should Schools Declare a Platform" thread shifted to a
MAC's vs PCs debate, from the more useful initial question about whether it is
appropriate for a school district to declare a platform that might inhibit teachers
and parents from exploring additional types of computers that could be of
benefit to them. Since the two platforms being considered were MAC's and
PC's, most of the traffic was more about the differing advantages of each, than
about the overall issue. But it did spark a lively discussion.
The issue in the "Is one computer on the Internet better than none?" will

be relevant to teachers who do not have excellent Internet access for their

162

students. For the most part, the educators on the list felt that significant
projects can be done, even with just a single Internet connection.
Policy and Philosophy: comparison and discussion

The policy and philosophy category was consistent as to percentage of
list activity over the two sample periods, varying by less than two percent
overall. Inquiry/ response ratios were also similarly consiStent, supporting the
idea that participants tend to engage in discussions in a similar manner over
time on EDTECH. Of course, topics varied, with a MAC vs. PC debate taking
up a lot of the discussion in 1995. Each period showed two or three major

discussions and several minor ones around the issues involved.

Operating Systems

 

Operating Systems Summary

 

 

 

 

 

. ' / R / B d
# of Postings % of sample Inquiry 8815:2136 roa cast
NOV. 1992 33 12.1 % 4/ 26/ 3
Nov. 1995 42 12.8% 10/32/0

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.18 - Summary of Operating Systems Messages

This category deals with questions and comments associated with the use
of various operating systems. It does not cover political or philosophic debates
on which operating system is preferable, but instead concentrates on issues

involving problems of use. It also includes items like RAM extension software,

security and file formats. Operating system messages tend to drift from topic to

163

topic within the same subject header and/ or discuss multiple topics. They are
almost entirely problem solving/how-to discussions, rather than informational
messages.

Operating Systems: 1992.

Of the 35 operating system messages in October 1992, 4 (11%) were
inquiries, 27 (77%) were responses and 4 (11%) were broadcast messages. The
main topic categories were:

0 Backup techniques and problems—14 (40%)

0 MAC operating system—7 (20%)

0 File associations, compression and conversion—7 (20%)
0 Protocols—5 (14%)

0 Drivers—2 (6%)

The longest discussion was on DOS Backup, though it drifted through a
few other topics. The initial inquiry mentioned that previously the DOS
Backup command was not considered reliable. It asked for input on current
opinion on using this program and problems with using it. Though there were
13 messages overall in this thread, only four apparently deal with the initial
topic. Eight discuss MAC backup and one formatting disks. There is at least

one follow-up under a different subject heading. Responses to the question

164

itself generally recommend using a different method than DOS backup. The
majority of the messages deal with MAC’s or methods of backing up MAC ’3.

The MAC operating system thread consisted of several broadcast mini-
essays on how to use a MAC by a subscriber, and a number of corrections to
the instructions by others. This exchange provoked a fair amount of off-list
discussion about whether EDTECH should carry sets of instructions,
particularly if they weren’t accurate.

The only informational thread was one which asked for a definition of
the NALPS protocol, but even that had overtones of problem solving, as the
question was looking for techniques of using it.

Operating Systeins: 1995.

The 42 operating system messages in the November 1995 sample. Of
these, 10 (24%) were inquiries and 32 (76%) were responses to a previous
message. They fell into the following categories:

0 MAC operating system questions - 9 (21%)
0 RAM extension software — 9 (21%)

0 Fonts - 2 (5%)

0 Desktop Security - 14 (33%)

0 DOS/ Windows - 4 (10%)

0 File formats, compression, associations and conversions - 4 (10%)

165

Though several topics only lasted for one or two messages, longer

discussions were held on the topics listed below. The longest discussions were

on RAM extension software and Windows desktop control programs.

MAC Classics whose system files seem to increase in size by themselves.
Problems with running Ram Doubler in a MAC LC 5200 lab. The
subscriber asked if anyone else was having the same problem. Various
people said they were or weren’t and offered suggestions for fixing the
problem.

A request for the name of a program to keep students from moving icons
or deleting programs in Windows (it evolved to people explaining what
the internal Windows settings that would restrict access are).

A related topic about Windows 3.1 that was discussed on the list, was
how to keep students out of the Windows Program manager.

Someone asked directions on how to fix a graphics image that wouldn’t
load properly in Netscape.

There was a brief discussion on methods of removing a partition on a

hard drive.

Operating Systems: Comparison and Discussion.

Concern with operating system questions remained remarkably

consistent between the two sample periods, varying less than one percent in

 

166

proportion of the total sample. The inquiry-broadcast vs. response ratios were
also quite similar showing at most a 2% difference overall. This may reflect a
consistent level of concern across participants, time and even hardware
platform, with managing issues related to the operating and file system being
used on computers in education.

With specific topics, while concern with issues directly related to the
Macintosh operating system remained consistent at about 20% across the two
years, most other topics discussed were so different that different categories had
to be used. It is, however, possible that desktop security and backup reflect the

same kinds of concerns, and so do show a stable trend in the discussion over the

 

 

 

 

 

two years.
Hardware
Hardware Summary
# of Postings % of sample Inquiry/Reslpptritze/Broadcast
Nov. 1992 35 12.9 % 10/25/0
Nov. 1995 54 16.5% 15/39/0

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.19 - Summary of Hardware Messages

This category is for discussions about hardware. Hardware includes any
of the technical items that educators may purchase or use. The category is

specifically for issues directly related to purchase, installation or use of

 

167

computers, printers, computer peripherals and cards, video, cable, satellite and
other related equipment.
Hardware: 1992.
Of 35 toral messages in November 1992, 10 (29%) were inquiries and 25
(71%) were responses to topics generated by others. The messages fell into the
following main categories. There are more categories for this topic than for
some others because of the diverse nature of concerns about hardware.
0 Printers—O (0%)
0 Mac Computers - 1 (3%)
0 Other Equipment (risograph, speech synthesizers, scanners, telephones) —
10 (29%)
0 TV, Cable TV, Video, Satellite — 7 (20%)
0 IBM Compatible computers - 1 (3%)
0 Input devices, keyboards, pointing devices, touch screens - 2 (6%)
0 Video cards, video capture boards, monitors, projection units - 7 (20%)
0 Drives 8: drive adapters (CD, fl0ppy, jaz, tape, video disk, laser disk) - 7
(20%)

0 Hardware purchasing for labs - 0 (0%)

 

168

Some longer conversations included discussions of the advantages of
using risographs, how cable TV is used on college campuses, questions about
LCD panels and videodisk control mechanisms for PCs.

Hardware: 1995
Of the 54 messages on hardware in the November 1995 sample, 15 (28%)
initiated a discussion and 39 (72%) responded to someone else’s inquiry.
0 Printers—4 (7%)
0 MAC Computers - 20 (37%)
0 Other Equipment - 3 (6%)
0 TV, Cable TV, Video, Satellite - 0 (0%)
0 IBM Compatible computers - 1 (2%)
0 Input devices, keyboards, pointing devices, touch screens - 9 (17%)
0 Video cards, video capture boards, monitors, projection units - 11 (20%)
0 Drives 8: drive adapters (CD, fl0ppy, jaz, tape, video disk, laser disk) - 4
(7%)
0 Hardware purchasing for labs - 2 (4%)
Some longer specific conversations included:
0 Where to get an adapter to send computer screens to a TV monitor.
0 What to do when MAC’s automatically shut down while students are

working on them.

 

 

169
0 Which of two MAC’s to purchase.

0 Where to find alternative input devises for special needs students.
0 How to fix a MAC that won’t boot.

0 Cleaning keyboards.

0 Info on Jaz drives.

Hardware: Comparison and Discussion

Discussion of hardware-related issues was reasonably consistent for the
two sample years, differing by less than four percent. Inquiry/ response ratios
were also quite similar. By 1995 the discussions on the liSt were much more
focused around computer-related issues only, with fairly clear drops in
categories where people discussed other kinds of technologies. There was also a
34% increase in messages related to Mac computers in 1995. While this could be
an anomaly of the month, it also may signify a shift in overall levels of usage or

problems with Macintosh computers. Further analysis would be required to

ascertain more of the reasons for the shift.

 

 

 

 

 

LANS and Servers
LAN s and Servers Summary
# of Postings % of sample Inquiry/Regaptriise/Broadcast
Nov. 1992 5 1.8 % 3/2/0
Nov. 1995 65 19.9% 17/48/0

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.20 - Summary of LANs and Servers Messages

 

170

Messages in this category discuss networking in general and via the
lntemet from a technical standpoint - how to connect, which networking or
server software to use, problems with modems and lntemet service providers.
They are not about client software or problems in doing tasks with the installed
software, but instead consider setup, equipment and technical problems
involving LAN and lntemet access and administration.

LANs and Servers: 1992

In November 1992 there were 5 messages related to networking, LANS
and servers. This was a very minor fraction of the traffic on EDTECH,
possibly too small of a grouping to tell much about trends on the list in this
subject area. The longest conversation (2 messages) discussed the best way to
network a group of Apple IIGS's. In addition there was a question about
Internet access in Upstate New York and one about using a LAN to deliver
Computer Based Training (both with no responses.) Perhaps the most
significant aspect of the discussion in this category in November 1992 was how
few messages there were.
LANs and Servers: 1995

In the November 1995 sample there were 65 messages related to LANS,
Internet access and servers, including 17 inquiries (26%) and 48 responses (74%).

In terms of broad categories these messages generally discussed:

171

0 Internet access, including modems and lntemet Service Providers (42%)

0 E-mail, Internet, WW and other servers (37%)

O LAN's in general (22%)

Some of the longer conversations are briefly summarized below:

Web servers: several people discussed whether to get a UND( or a Mac
WWW server for a school, and which type to purchase, offering
recommendations and comments on various servers.

How to keep a MAC from automatically initiating a PPP session—advise
and opinions were offered on how to prevent this from happening.
Problems with various modems and software crashing or having difficulties
accessing America Online—it appears that many subscribers were having
difficulty with specific brands of modems and accessing specific providers,
like AOL, while using them. They shared experiences and tips.

AT8CT's announced plan to provide money to link all the United States'
elementary schools—this relatively lengthy (8 message) thread mostly
expressed people’s skepticism that the plan would be all it was promoted as,
but there was some interest in following its development and possibly
participating.
How to best connect a MAC lab to the Internet—this thread began with a

question on whether it was better to get a dedicated regular phone line and

172

modem for each computer in the MAC lab or to get a single line with higher
bandwidth and network the computers so all could access it. Several pe0ple
replied, most supporting the networked idea.

0 How to share CD's over a MAC network—a participant who had been told
that it was difficult to share CD’s via a MAC network checked to see if this
was a common opinion or if it can be done without too much expense.

LANs and Servers: Comparison and Discussion

This area is the one with the greatest increase (17%) between 1992 and
1995 on EDTECH. It may correspond to the 17% drop in discussion of
application software between the two years. It is possible that these changes
come simply as a shift in the emphasis of the list itself. Or they may reflect an
overall shift in the needs and interests of professionals in the area of educational
technology from how to use specific pieces of software, to how to access and
manage groups of computers and their interface with the rest of the world.

Additional study would be needed to see if the apparent shift in emphasis on

EDTECH is one that is also reflect over the same time period on similar lists, or

if it appears to be a phenomena unique to EDTECH.

173

Administrative and Miscellaneous

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative and Miscellaneous Summary I

# of Postings % of sample Inquiry/Resipaclitriige/Broadcast 4
NOV. 1992 6 2.2 % 2/4/0
Nov. 1995 4 1.2% 2/0/2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.21 - Summary of Administrative and Miscellaneous Messages

This category, which contains relatively few messages, was set up to
classify administrative notes from the editor and messages that don’t seem to fall
in any of the more substantive categories.

Administrative and Miscellaneous: 1992

In November 1992, there were six messages in the administrative and
miscellaneous category. Four were requests for contact information or phone
numbers for specific educational technology professionals and two were
individual notes or comments to the list not directly related to educational
technology.

Administrative and Miscellaneous: 1995

In November 1995, there were four administrative or miscellaneous
messages. They consisted of one request that people send greetings messages to
a school open house, one administrative note from the list editor about lost

mail, a request for a copy of a videotape, and an offer to buy a 14.4 modem.

174

Administrative and Miscellaneous: Comparison and Discussion

It appears that the level of administrative and miscellaneous messages on

EDTECH remained fairly consistent and low over the two sample periods.

Possibly the editing was better during the second period, as there seemed to be

fewer messages that weren't directly related to educational technology, but as

the samples are so small, it would be difficult to determine if this apparent trend

can be generalized to other months. Since this category is supposed to be small

and generate minimal traffic, it appears that it was being handled well in both

sample periods.

Net-Happenings Messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net-Ha penings Summary
# of Postings % of sample Inqurry/Reslpptriige/Broadcast
Nov. 1992 38 14.0 % 0/ 0/ 38
Nov. 1995 O 0% O/O/O

 

 

 

Figure 6.22 - Summary of Net-Happenings Messages

Net-Happenings postings were an important part of EDTECH during its

early years. These were postings by the future moderator of a popular

broadcast list. Net-Happenings sends summaries or copies of messages of

interest from other lists out to its subscribers. November 1992 was before the

time when Net-Happenings split off to be its own list.

 

175
Net-Happenings Postings: 1992

In November 1992, 14% of the EDTECH list traffic (38 postings) were
cross-posted by the future editor of Net-Happenings. These postings were all
broadcast in nature, since the intent of Net-Happenings was to transmit useful
information, but not to promote discussion about it necessarily. In general
these messages were not used in calculating the descriptive statistics on
EDTECH, as there were so many that they would distort the contributions of
other list members. But if they had been included in the various main
categories represented they would have been assigned as follows:

0 Application software (3%)
0 Internet software, sites 8!. resources (55%)
0 Research 8L Professional Development (26%)
0 Curriculum (16%)
Net-Happenings Postings: 1995
Net-Happenings was a separate list by 1995, so there were no Net-

Happenings postings on EDTECH.

Initial, Response and Broadcast Messages
The activity of initiating a conversation or providing information not
previously requested to a group seems to be a different one than the activity of

responding to the questions of others. Throughout the study of content, the

176

proportions of initial, response and broadcast messages were noted in each
category, in order to give an additional indicator of the quality and general type
of discussion on the different topics. An additional breakdown to determine if
there is a difference in initiatory behavior by posters who fall in the more
frequent or "multiple" groups rather than the less frequent groups was also
calculated (see Figure 6.23). A multiple poster is someone whose participation

likely was not comprised of a single broadcast message or a “drop-in” posting on

a single topic.

177

As Figure 6.23 shows, while about half of all messages by single posters
are messages which ask a question, broadcast informational material, or
otherwise initiate a new conversation, a substantial majority of the messages of

multiple posters consist of responses to messages previously posted to the list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial vs. Response Messages
EDTECH by Category of Poster
November 1992

Single Multiple (2) Multiple (3) Multiple (4+)
Tm! 93 36 54 50
Postings
Initial or
Broadcast 39 42% 10 28% 11 20% 8 16%
Messages
Resp‘m” 54 58% 26 72% 43 80% 42 84%
Messages

November 1995 -

Single Multiple (2) Multiple (3) Multiple (4+)

Total
142 87 207

Postipgs 26°
Initial or o
Broadcast 131 50.4% 56 39.4% 25 28.7% 42 20.3%
Messages ‘
ResP‘mse 129 49.6% 86 60.6% 62 71.3% 165 79.7%
Messages

Figure 6.23 - Initial vs. Response Messages

 

 

 

178

As the frequency of multiple posting increases, the percentage of total
messages that are responses to topics, rather than initiatory communications
also seems to increase. In part, this can be seen intuitively, as one could assume
that someone who posted more might be reading the other messages more
carefully, and thus tend more to respond to the content of the list. The exact
percentages and how they vary with frequency are not obvious without analysis
though. The response rate was overall higher in 1992 than in 1995. The general
pattern seems similar (see Figure 6.24), but further analysis would be needed to
tell more about why people tended to respond more during the earlier month.

There were also 42 Net-Happenings postings in November 1992. These
were not considered for this analysis, since they were essentially all broadcast
messages, and atypical of what any participant besides the Net-Happenings
moderator would post. Their inclusion in the statistics with the other postings
would be sufficient to obscure the posting trends of more typical posters. They
would definitely show a markedly different proportion of response vs. initial
postings. For the most part, individuals who only send broadcast messages
would be kept in analysis, considered an integral phenomena of the list. In this
case however, as Net-Happenings was really a second embedded list, it was
decided to remove these, in order to better reflect the behavior of general

participants.

179

 

Initial vs. Response Messages
EDTECH Nov. 1992

' I Reopen—s?
.Inltial

 

One Two Three Four or
More

Nunber of postings participant made

 

 

 

Initial vs. Response Messages
EDTECH Nov. 1995

\‘ .Response .
‘1 . Initial

 

One Two Three Four or
More

Nunber of postings participant made

 

 

Figure 6.24 - Comparison of Initial vs. Response Postings

 

 

’l

 

 

 

180

Figure 6.24 shows the pattern of decreasing initiatory message posting as
frequency increases. Though these are clear differences in percentage, it appears
that there may be a pattern here that would be worth studying in other

contexts.

Summary, Conclusions and Areas for Further Study of
Content

This Chapter looks at a broad overview of the messages and categories of
message posted on EDTECH. It does not attempt to go beyond the obvious
subject matter or indication of whether the message began or responded to a
conversation. There is an apparent trend toward a greater degree of responsive
messaging behavior, rather than initiatory, as the number of messages pOSted by
any individual increases.

Many categories of topics maintained roughly the same percentage of
activity over the two years. There were marked differences in the level of
discussion on software, curriculum and LAN's and servers though, with a
substantial drop in consideration of specific software, and an equally large
increase in concern with LAN '5, servers and lntemet access. In each case, the
specific topics within the general category did not fully match, giving the

impression of internal change in these fields.

 

 

 

181

The fact that several topics retained nearly the same percentage of the
total content of the list may indicate that EDTECH does reflect the field of
educational technology, and what educators will discuss given a relatively free
environment for discussion with Other educators. It appears the policy,
philosophy, professional development and research tend to comprise about 25%
of people's discussion time. Hardware and operating systems account for
another 25'300/0. Software, curriculums and Internet resources make up another
25%, and the LAN's and Servers and miscellaneous postings account for the rest
(at least in 1995). In 1992 there were many less LAN postings, and more in the
areas of software and hardware resources.

Areas for further study.

There are many possible areas for additional studies. Formal content
analysis could be done to determine some of the list dynamics at a deeper level.
As well, some of the following questions (as well as many others) could be
profitably addressed.

Does the trend toward more response postings continue with other ISP’s
or over different time frames?

In operating systems, would the stability continue to show up with
regard to percentage of messages related to this topic over other samples and in

different time periods. If it did, what does this stability imply? Are the topic

 

182

shifts in operating system messages a cyclic or random phenomenon or do they
follow trends in the marketplace or in education in general?

In the area of LAN 's and servers, does the change in number of postings
indicate a shift in who is participating in the list, a difference in what educators
are concerned with, or anorher factor which would bring about such a large
shift in emphasis?

There are several differences between years. One that might tend to
affect results overall is the apparent tendency toward greater response postings
in 1992 than in 1995. Since this means that people might have been interaCting
with the list differently in the more recent year, it could be worthwhile to study
the phenomena over additional time frames, and also survey or otherwise
analyze what was happening in order to determine how this tendency might
have reflected the general usefulness and norms of the list.

It could be worthwhile to analyze the content for whether the question
asked was actually responded to usefully and in what time frame. Another
study could also try to assess quality and style of answers, and if any

conversational styles appeared to affect frequency or duration of posting.

Chapter 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study is designed to provide an in-depth description and discussion of
the participants and content of the EDTECH e-mail list over a several year period. It
concentrates especially on contrasting two similar months several years apart.
Though the findings are summarized separately at the conclusion of each of the
major analysis chapters, in this chapter they are synthesized and general conclusions

that may go beyond what can be found in any individual chapter are offered.

History, Description and Characteristics

Though there were no specific research questions related to Chapter 3 on the
history and general characteristics of EDTECH, summarizing it does offer certain
insights into the growth and demographics of the list. It is important to note that this
study was conduCted by the main editor of EDTECH, who edited the list as a
volunteer over the 8 years covered. The list sustained its growth and continuity of
style because of the efforts of volunteer editors (mainly the researcher). EDTECH
exhibited steady growth in terms of subscribers and numbers of postings since its
inception in 1989. Though concentrated in the United States and Canada, it has a
widely international constituency. As was typical of the Internet during the period of
this study, there appear to be many more male than female active participants, but

183

 

 

184

this disparity shows signs of lessening in the period between 1992 and 1995 as
proportionally more female subscribers began actively participating.
Frequency of Participation

There are three major research questions considered in the analysis of
frequency of participation. They provide insight into the amount of interaction in
professional online communities and some parameters for assessing effective
amounts of interaction with e-mail lists.
Research Question 1: How frequently do EDTECH participants post?

Research Question 2: What proportion of the t0tal list messages come from
different frequency category posters?

Research Question 3: Is this frequency of posting consistent at different points in
time?

The findings indicate that about one third of the group who posts are multiple
posters or more active participants and about two thirds only post once in a given
month. The percentage who post four or more times appears to be gradually
increasing, moving from 6.5% to 12.5% between 1992 and 1996. It is not clear
whether this is a different behavior or simply a reaction to the overall increase in
postings. When considered by message, one third of all postings came from single
posters and two thirds from multiple posters. This seems relatively stable across all
three years analyzed. The data tends to indicate that EDTECH postings are
distributed over a relatively consistent frequency pattern over time, particularly with
regard to the categories of posters who make the posting. Initial analysis of duration

185
(see Chapter 5) shows that there was little overlap in participants between 1992 and

1995, so the frequency of posting was probably not due to posting characteristics of
specific individual list participants. The pattern of variation in the data may be a
phenomenon of the list itself and how it varies with response to change in the field

and methods of electronic communication.

Continuity and Duration of Participation

There are four major research questions related to continuity and duration of
participation. These attempt assess the usefulness of EDTECH to the field, and
provide insight into how new lists may be better designed to optimize participation.

Research Question 4: Over a short range of time, how many of the participants
who post at least once seem to continue posting regularly?

Research Question 5: Do people who post more frequently, also seem to post more
regularly over a short range of time?

Research Question 6: Over a longer range of time, how many of the participants
who post at least once seem to continue posting regularly?

Research Question 7: Do people who post more frequently also tend to post over a
greater length of time (exhibit greater duration of
participation)?

In terms of general continuity during the base months studied, about 35-40%
of participants also posted in the previous month. Approximately the same
percentage pOSted in both the base month and the following month. When
participants posting in the base month and either of the contiguous months was
calculated, the figure rose to between 50 and 60%. When those posting in the base

month and both of the contiguous months were considered, the percentage dropped

’,

 

186

to just under 20% however. Apparently people who post more frequently also pOSt
more regularly, as the charts show a steady increase in percentage of repeat posters as
frequency of posting also increases. In general repeat participation drops to 20% or
less within about a year from a given base month, and to 10% or lower after two
years. This pattern of a substantial drop in repeat posting over time remains
consistent when multiple posters are considered alone, but the percentages who
continue to be active are much higher, especially in the four or more poster category.
Because of this, there were few overlapping participants in Nov. 1992 and Nov. 1995.
The general posting patterns were quite similar, showing a typical pattern of shift in
participants over time, and typical patterns within frequency categories of posters.
This lends credence to the idea that topic and general setup of the lisr plus the small
number of continuing pOSters are sufficient to largely influence the dynamics of the
list.

More frequent posting seems to predict a higher percentage of repeat posters
in the future. Posting in the present appears to indicate more Strongly that a person

will post in the future than that the person did post in the past.

Content

The final three research questions involve classification and discussion of the
content of the EDTECH list messages in order to examine what topics were being
discussed by professionals in the field of educational technology over time, and how

these varied The topics discussed may offer insights into the trends and concerns of

 

187

professionals and might be used as conference topics, publications and avenues for
further research.

Research Question 8: What categories of t0pics are discussed on an e-mail list on
educational technology?

Research Question 9: Do these categories or the topics that comprise them vary
over time?

Research Question 10: Does the percentage of messages that initiate a topic or
broadcast information differ between different frequency
category of posters?

In the Content chapter a broad overview of the messages and categories of
messages posted on EDTECH was analyzed No attempt was made to go beyond
the obvious subject matter or indication of whether the message began or responded

to a conversation. List messages were divided between eight main categories:

Application software

Curriculum

Internet software, sites 8L resources

Research, positions, schools 85 professional development
Policy and philosophy

09mins systems

Hardware

LANS, Servers 86 Internet connections

In general each of these categories includes between five and twenty percent of the
messages sent.

Many categories of topics maintain roughly the same percentage of activity
over the two years. There are marked differences in the level of discussion on

software, curriculum and LANs and servers though, with a substantial drop in

188

consideration of specific software, and an equally large increase in concern with
LAN’ 5, servers and Internet access. In each case, the specific topics within the
general category did not fully match, giving the impression of internal change in these
fields. There is an apparent trend toward a greater degree of responsive messaging
behavior, rather than initiatory as the number of messages posted by any individual

increases.

Areas and Questions for Further Study

Given so much material is available and relatively little research currently
completed on professional e—mail lists, there are many possible areas for further
research. This section offers a preliminary group of tapics that might be worthy of
additional study.

History, Description and Characteristics

The preliminary consideration of gender on EDTECH could be expanded
into a variety of additional research projects. Of course several additional data points
might make it more clear if a trend has been developing in terms of the gender of
posters. As well, the types of contributions of different genders of posters, and if they
appear to take different roles in the group dynamic could be of interest. The same
consideration would apply to the physical location of participants. For example,

whether the majority or participants are located on the West or East coast of the

United States, might be valuable information for undersranding list dynamics. How

189

participants other than those in the United States are interacted with on the list is also

a useful question, i.e., are they answered more, less or the same amount when they

ask questions? This could help investigators understand how to allow for various

kinds of cultural bias in designing communications networks.

Frequency of Participation

Some dimensions related to frequency of participation that could also be more

fully compared include the following

High Volume vs. Low Volume - number and size of communications in words or
time it takes to view them. How does this affect participation rates?

Widespread with regard to participation vs. not - how many active vs. passive
participants does the list include?

Synchronous vs. Asynchronous — What impact does immediate reception and/ or
ability to interact vs. separated in time have?

More Accessible vs. Less Accessible - How does relative ease of sending and
receiving change the way people interact with an e-mail list?

Inexpensive vs. Costly - What is the cost in time or money of sending or
receiving and how does that impact frequency of posung?

Read or heard vs. Ignored - What percentage of postings are people actually
reading or using?

Interface - Does the relative pleasantness vs. unpleasantness of the interface
impact participation?

With analysis of frequency, due to the volume of messages, it is difficult to

look at groupings of more than a few months. It is possible that additional sampling,

more random sampling, and variations on sampling techniques would yield useful

190
data to help researchers further understand frequency of posting on a discussion list
like this and factors that might influence it.

Some additional general questions that might be researched include:

0 Would the monthly percentages indicated in this Chapter 4 remain the same if
they were averaged over a consecutive three month period?

0 Though this study shows frequency within a particular time frame, it doesn't
- indicate ongoing rate which could vary over time due to many factors. What

would be shown by studying different slices of time, or consecutive slices?

0 One could observe the cumulative frequency within the group as time increases.
What percentage of 2 time posters would become 3 time posters if the period
were extended another week? 2 weeks? 3 weeks?

0 Would frequency be different in different months such as April or July?

0 What are daily rates? Average daily frequency? Could a smaller sample be
extrapolated into an equivalent pattern?

0 Would the apparent pattern of 2/ 3 single posters hold if tested over a number of
different months? If so, does this phenomena show up in other listserv groups?
Other types of online groups?

0 Is this frequency signature consistent with only EDTECH? Is it also displayed by

Other lists or other lists configured in similar ways? Which list configuration
variables might affect it and how?

0 Does the change m the number or type of topics discussed in a month affect the
frequency of posting?

In summary, study of the three base months shows patterns in frequency of
posting that appear to endure over time. Alone, it does not make clear what effect
the medium and content of the discussion have on establishing these patterns, but it

does open a rich area for additional research into frequency patterns on e-mail lists.

191

Continuity and Duration of Participation

Some dimensions related to continuity and duration of participation that could

also be more fully compared include the following:

0 Short-range vs. Distant - How large is physical spread of participants and does it
affect participation?

0 Who produces the communication? What are additional demographic
characteristics of posters. Does this impact duration or continued use of the list?

0 Public vs. Multiple vs. Individual - who receives the communication? In what
context are list messages received and used? How does this affect continued
participation?

November 1992 and November 1995 appear somewhat different. Some of

the following questions could be analyzed. Was there a gradual shift or an abrupt

one? What events precipitated these changes? Was it only the general increase in

Internet participation, or were other important factors involved? In addition to the

charts included here, one could chart:

Additional continuity from week to week and at 2, 3 and 6 months.
Continuity via other set number of message spans, rather than time spans.

Continuity via other categories, such as gender, location/ node, and those who
ask specific kinds of questions, or generate specific kinds of postings.

Variation in reduction rates during different spans of time.

Differences in reduction patterns among different types of posters.

From the November 1995 data, it appears that study of duration for more

than 2 years isn't generally useful, since the amount of overlap in participants beyond

 

192

2 years is so low. Study of the types of messages of those who do remain for long
periods of time might be useful though.

Content

There are many possible areas for additional studies. Since the archives are
massive any number of different analyses could take place. Within commonly
discussed characteristics of electronic mail group activity, list activity that could be

further explored include where list activity falls on some of the following dimensions:
0 Are postings more oriented toward helping others or more self-promotional?

0 Quality and usefulness - is content more accurate and useful, speculative or
inaccurate? Does it consist of opinions or facts? Is it mainly problem
oriented, or more involved with exploring new possibilities?

0 Bias - do messages showing certain biases or loyalties?

0 Orientation - are postings meant for anyone or directed to a select group? Are
they obvious to anyone or encoded (either in fact or by technical language)?
What is the culture of the list (tone, civility, etc)?

Formal content analysis could be done to determine some of the list dynamics

at a deeper level. As well, some of the following questions derived directly from the
study might be addressed.

0 Does the trend toward more response postings continue with Other ISP’s or
over different time frames?

0 In operating systems, would the stability continue to show up with regard to
percentage of messages related to this topic over other samples and in
different time periods? If it did, what does this stability imply?

 

0 Are the topic shifts in operating system messages a cyclic or random
phenomenon or do they follow trends in the marketplace or in education?

193
o In the area of LANS’s and servers, does the change in number of postings

indicate a difference in who is participating in the list, in what educators are

concerned with, or another factor which would cause a shift in emphasis?

There are several differences between years. One that might tend to affect
results overall is the apparent tendency toward greater response postings in 1992 than
in 1995. Since this means that people might have been interacting with the li5t
differently in the more recent year, it could be worthwhile to study the phenomena
over additional time frames, and also survey or otherwise analyze what was
happening in order to determine how this tendency might have reflected the general
usefulness and norms of the list. It might also be worthwhile to analyze the content
for whether the question asked was actually responded to usefully and in what time
frame. Another study could also assess quality and style of answers, and discover if

any conversational styles appeared to affect frequency or duration of posting.
Summary of Areas for Further Study

In summary, a study of this nature may open as many questions as it answers,
though it is able to offer insights and one structure for organizing and viewing data

The whole area of electronic conferencing is so new and changeable that it may take
several more years to fully integrate with other research projects currently underway.
Because of its increasing use and the growing number of questions by educators that
want to know how best to create discussion with students online, it does appear to be
an important area for further Study and research, so that we can optimize the results

gained by employing these technologies in education.

I.
l

.9;

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

Coding Instructions

Two examples of the exact method used to determine the number of
participants in a given time period and how long they tended to continue
participating are included in Appendix A They appear here in order to provide
additional information on the procedures used to gather the data of the dissertation

from the message logs.

194

ll

 

Coding Sheet A

Determining Number of Participants in a Given Time Period

For each time period being counted, obtain a listing of messages organized by author.
This listing should contain name of author, e-mail address, date and subject of
posting.

 

Note: the raw data should be cleaned to eliminate error due to the same person listing
only an e-mail address or writing his/ her name in various ways, e.g. Dr. Jones, Paul
Jones, Paul Q. Jones, P. Jones, etc. This cleaning can be done on full copies of the
log rn a word processor. Go through the log message by message adding names in
subject lines, where they don’ t appear, changing non-standard names into a standard
format, and Standardizing variant formats for names where possible. If a person uses
initials rn the From: line but the full first name in the body of the message, change the
From: line to the spelled out first name format. If initials remain in both locations,
leave the initials in the From: line, but note the gender of the person, if somehow
indicated, and annotate the final printout(s) to indicate it.

In general leave the address as indicated in the From: line unless variant addresses are
all indicated in the body of the message. In that case, if messages from the same
person are received from variant addresses, Standardize with the first address listed in
the body of the message for all messages. If possible standardize the more common
nicknames to only one version (the one used in the signature). In Other words, make

Bob/ Robert pairs all either Bob or Robert, Bill/ William pairs all either Bill or
William, etc.

Note: this listing MUST be saved in plain ASCII format with the general formatting
put in by Listserv left intact. When it is completed, request that the technical staff .
replace the old version of the log with the updated one and fix the WWW archiving
program so that it will index the new log vs. the old one in the future.

Where variations on the name or address still remain at the time of coding, mark any
unusual formats observed, and check against more standard versions of the author’s
name. If it is unclear whether two entries are from the same person or not, check the

full content of the messages in the WWW archive and note any findings on the index
sheet.

195

In the standard version, authors appear in alphabetical order by full first and last

name. For example they would appear:

Amy Martin
John Smith
Mary Doe

Initials, titles, missing names and other variations should be nOted and matching
attempted with standard version postings. When a match is found, cross out the
non-standard author line, and annOtate the standard entry in the listing for that
person to indicate that an additional posting was found

When all data has been cleaned and reorganized, count and total the number of
unique posters for that time period

196

 

Coding Sheet B

Coding Instructions /Method—Continuity and Duration
of Participation

For each time period being counted, obtain a listing of messages organized by author.
This. listing should contain name of author, e-mail address, date and subject of
posting.

 

Note: the raw data should be cleaned to eliminate error due to the same person listing
only an e-mail address or writing his/ her name in various ways, e.g. Dr. Jones, Paul
Jones, Paul Q. Jones, P. Jones, etc. Where errors still remain at the time of coding,
mark any unusual formats observed, and check against more standard versions of the
author’s name. If it is unclear whether two entries are from the same person or not,
check the full content of the messages in the WWW archive and note any findings on
the index sheet.

In the standard version, authors appear in alphabetical order by full first and last

name. For example they would appear:

Amy Martin
John Smith
Mary Doe

Initials, titles, missing names and other variations should be noted and matching
attempted with standard version postings. When a match is found, cross out the
non-standard author line, and annotate the standard entry in the listing for that

person to indicate that an additional posting was found.

Calculate and write the number of postings each individual made in the base time
period to the left of the person’s name in the index.

Compare the base time period listing with other targeted time period listings. Using
color or anOther appropriate marking system, annOtate the original of the base time
period index whenever there is a match with a person’s name in a targeted time
period listing. Create an annotation key and write it on the top of all base and
targeted month index for further reference.

After finishing the annotation, calculate and record the number of authors in the base
time period, and the number of matches in other time periods.

197

 

 

APPENDDC B

Selected Pages from the EDTECH List WWW Site

Several pages containing additional background information about EDTECH
that appear on the EDTECH WWW Site at http://www.h-net.msu.edu/ ~edweb
follow. These pages are meant to give additional detail and insight into how
EDTECH worked As well, a copy of the internal style guide for editors is included.
This appears on the EDTECH WWW site at
http://wwwh-net.msu.edu/~edweb/stylehtml. It contains more information on the

basis under which messages may be rejected to changed by an editor.

198

 

 

Welcome to the EDTECH WWW Archive site. This site was created to help make the

archives and references offered by the many subscribers and participants in the EDTECH
discussion list more accessible for reference and study.

The EDTECH List

With approximately 3500 direct subscribers internationally and about 8000 readers
participating through news groups, gopher and WWW sites, EDTECH plays an
influential role in determining the future directions of the uses of technology in education
for many universities and school districts.

SuhacrihingandManaging your Subscription

This page offers directions for subscribing to the EDTECH list so that you receive
messages in your individual mail. As well it contains requirements and tips for posting to
EDTECH and directions for managing an EDTECH subscription or signing off the list.

The discussions on EDTECH are archived by month, and organized by author, date,
subject and thread. Not all months are available, but those that are can be found on our
mm.

Other Resources:

. For another listing of EDTECH messages as well as much other information on
education, try the AW WWW site or go directly to AskERlC's copy of the
W for 1994 and 1995.

. Summaries of current news of interest in the field of Educational Technology can
be found at

EDILQQM
0 Many other educational materials can be found at Wand Ihefilghal
SchoolnetEQundation.

 

EDTECH is Sponsored by the Michiganfitatellnixersiu Winn as part of

199

its efforts to encourage professional education in the uses on technology in all educational
settings.

EDTECH is affiliated with H—lfletflumanitiesflnflne, which sponsors many e-mail lists
involved with education and scholarship in history and the humanities

Please send comments to Vickie Banks: MW

200

EDTECH DISCUSSION LIST

 

 

awlmlnmmimmi

The EDTECH discussion list was created to bring together faculty, educators, students
and "interested others" in the field of educational technology to share ideas and
information. Founded in February of 1989, for over seven years EDTECH has hosted a
lively, ongoing discussion among leaders in the field on all aspects of the problems and
triumphs associated with merging technology and education.

Subscription is free and subscribers automatically receive messages in their computer
mailboxes, either as individual pieces of mail or as a longer daily digest. Messages can be
saved, discarded, printed out, or forwarded to someone else.

Frequent topics of discussion include:

problems in using educational technology and how to solve them

articles and books subscribers have found stimulating and worthwhile
information about course offerings and edtech graduate program requirements at
various schools

notable educational hardware and software, as well as junk one should avoid -
conferences and events related to educational technology

. current dissertations and research projects in educational technology

This list is moderated. That means when you send something to EDTECH, it first
automatically is forwarded to an editor. The editor is a volunteer who works with the list
to help ensure a high quality discussion. The editor screens out communications not
related to Educational Technology or obviously not intended or appropriate for EDTECH
and handles them privately. The Editor forwards the rest of the communications on to all
the subscribers of the list.

EDTECH is sponsored by Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and
Special Education at the Michigan State University College of Education and by H-NET
Humanities Online, with generous assistance from the staff of the Michigan State
University Computer Center.

EDTECH was originally located on the OHSTVMA node at Ohio State University. You
may see old references to EDTECH@OHSTVMA in some publications. All EDTECH
messages should now be directed to MSU.EDU rather than to OHSTVMA. We

appreciate the time and effort put in by the staff at Ohio State during the EDTECH's first
years.

201

Km to EDTECH Home Page.

 

Please direct any comments to: W 2 I 765EDT@MS U. EDU
or to W vbanks@h-net.msu.edu or
'll E 'l l

War

202

Subscribing to EDTECH

I:- .....4.-—-.. .f.--» .“w-...‘-m.—MW. .4.— m_,- ._._.. _.... .,

To subscribe to EDTECH send mail to: W
Your message should say:

SUBSCRIBE EDTECH firstname lastname
Example: SUBSCRIBE EDTECH Joe Byers

Be sure to fill in the From: blank with your correct e-mail address. (Delete
what appears there first, if it isn't the correct mailing address for you.)

You will receive a confirmation request in the mail. When you return it, you
will be added to the EDTECH list and receive further information.

If you have difficulty, try sending the subscribe command above directly
from your own e-mail account, or write to the Edtech Editor at

203

Posting Messages to EDTECH

 

 

Anyone with an electronic mail account can post a message to the EDTECH list. Simply

address your e-mail message to:
EDTECH@MSU.EDU

We encourage posting from your regular e-mail account, rather than via a WWW
connection to ensure correct addressing and prOper formatting of your message.

Your message will be sent to the EDTECH editor who will forward it on the the
EDTECH list if it is appropriate. Depending on the volume when you post, there may be
a delay or a few hours to a day or two before you see your message appear on the list.

We welcome postings from any individual on the subject of using technology in any
educational setting, and particularly foster and advocate educators helping each other
grow and learn about using technology.

Since EDTECH is a discussion based list, preference is given to messages that may
produce useful dialog on the list, that can benefit many pe0ple. Messages from
non-subscribers requesting off-list, individual replies are only posted when time and
volume permits.

All messages to EDTECH must be signed in the body of the message with full name and
e-mail address to help improve the quality of the archives by clearly identifying
individual posters.

Please note: EDTECH does not accept commercial advertising, spams, chain letters,
flames and off-topic postings. These messages will deleted by the editor upon receipt.

(See Wines for more details on posting policies. )

204

 

EDTECH Tips & Guidelines

“—5.”, . r _.M-. -1. . a..-...._.......,r

Here are a few tips for subscribers and posters to help you use this discussion
group well:

Your first communication with EDTECH: In your first communication with
EDTECH, we would appreciate hearing about you, your interests, your work,
and/or your institution.

We recommend that new subscribers read through the recent postings at this.
archive site or on gopher or Usenet News before posting, to get up to date wrth
current conversations on EDTECH.

Appropriate topics: Make sure that your posting relates to the uses of technology
in education. Even though other topics may by of interest to you, they may be
better placed on a different list. The EDTECH Editor screens out communications
not related to Educational Technology or obviously not intended or appropriate
for the EDTECH list (things like "HELP" or "Harry, It's nice to hear from you
again!") and handles them privately.

Mail EDTECH doesn't accept: EDTECH does not post spams, chain letters,
flames, most one liners and quips, copyrighted material without approval,
encoded documents, documents in languages other than English unless
accompanied by a full translation, the source code for computer programs, most
appeals for money, messages that say only "me too" or "thanks", anonymous mail,
mail that doesn't appear to be written by the person who signed it, messages that
don't seem to make sense, messages that are so badly formatted that the average
person wouldn't bother to read them, and other communications that probably
wouldn't enhance the quality of the discussion.

Commercial Advertising: EDTECH does not accept any commercial advertising
from individuals or companies, and will not post unsolicited commercial
announcements. Some informational postings about conferences or available
educational resources may be accepted from known non-profit educational
institutions or groups. *

Reposting the same message: In general, due to high volume, EDTECH only
posts a message once. If you don't get the response you had hoped, and wish to
ask again, please don't just send the same message over again. Explain what result
you got from your first inquiry and provide significant additional detail. Also,
since many people do not read EDTECH daily, please allow a few days before
assuming you didn't get a sufficient response.

Separating your EDTECH mail from your other mail: When you get mail
from EDTECH it may seem with some mail programs, at first glance, that it is all
coming from the EDTECH Editor (21765EDT@MSU.EDU). This is not the case,
however. The original sender is also usually named in the header, and pe0ple sign
their mail in the body of their messages.

205

 

With other mail programs, such as Eudora, it appears that each piece of mail came
from the individual, rather than from EDTECH. In this case, we recommend using
one of the filters that come with the updated version of most mail programs to
mark the EDTECH mail or send it directly to its own Inbox, so that it is easier for
you to keep your list mail separate from your personal mail.

Replying to EDTECH mail: Please be careful when using the REPLY function
to reply to EDTECH mail. That will generally send your reply back to the
EDTECH list. Usually, to reply privately to the individual who wrote the
message, you will need to address your reply specifically to that person. If it is not
clear whether your message was intended for the list or not, the Editor may send
you a note asking what you intended.

Signing EDTECH Postings: To make it easier for others on the EDTECH list to
communicate with you directly, we require that you put a signature on your mail
to EDTECH at the bottom of EVERY piece (even ones you are forwarding from
other lists). The signature should include:

0 your name
. your email address
. your university or professional affiliation

If you neglect to do this, the Editor may add it to your message for you or return
your mail. This is necessary because the original address headers at the top are
automatically stripped off by many mailers, so if your address isn't included in the
body of your message, some subscribers won't know who posted it. EDTECH
does not accept anonymous contributions.

Message Length: Because of the various problems inherent in sending and
archiving very long messages, EDTECH prefers that you keep messages under

5 00 lines in length. It is often better to offer people the URL where they can find a
very long document, if they are interested, than to send it to everyone.

Quoting Previous Messages: While it is sometimes important to quote a short
part of a previous message that you are replying to in order to set up the context, it
is not necessary to routinely quote the entirety of a previous message. If your
mailer does this by default, we would appreciate your deleting the unnecessary
parts of the previous message from your reply before sending. In particular, please
do not include old quoted address headers that say To: EDTECH... in the body of
your new message, as the listserver may reject your mail if you do.

Using the correct addresses: Please send maintenance
communications/questions (cg, signoffs, procedures, archives, etc.) to
LISTSERV@MSU.EDU Please send only substantive communications regarding
educational technology to EDTECH@MSU.EDU.

USENET News Gateway. EDTECH 1s carried on USENET NEWS as
.Some subscribers prefer to participate via our Newsgroup
Gateway, rather than receive messages in their individual mailboxes.

The AskERIC Archive: To read conversations that have happened in previous

206

months on EDTECH or get another copy of a message you deleted, you can use
the AskERIC service gopher or order archives from AskERIC via FTP.

Gopher: ericir.syr.edu port 70
or look under Other gopher servers in North America

FTP: ericir.syr.edu
login as anonymous lpub/EDTECH

Gopher is the probably the best way to access the messages. The FTP file is just
one large text file, while gopher breaks them up into individual subjects to
browse.

If you can't find the AskERIC gOpher, have any technical problem or want to
know more about the AskERIC service, please send a note to AskERIC
(askeric@ericir.syr.edu).

Learning more about e-mail lists: If you are new to the lntemet or to using
e-mail lists, you might purchase one of the several currently available guides to
the lntemet available at your local bookstore. Check that the book includes a
chapter on using LISTSERV mailing lists.

 

If you have any questions or comments about the EDTECH mailing list,
please send them to the EDTECH Editor at 21765EDT@MSU.EDU

207

 

Useful Listserv Commands

 

t..-.—.._...--....—....:—.- _ .w-b—a........—.- -H ‘-w‘-———-¢r~ _:,_ H- . , -—. . ,..... L ...... ._ M-.., m. All _.._

If you are new to the lntemet, you might find it useful to get one of the many
introductory guides in your local bookstore and read through the chapter on using
Listserv lists to become more aware of the range of commands one can use to
manage an e-mail subscription. What follows is a list of the most commonly used
commands.

Please avoid the common mistake of adding a signature or other comments to
these commands. Since they will be read by a computer, you need to include only
the simple command itself in the body of your message.

Please send these commands to:

LISTSERV@MSU.EDU
. To subscribe to EDTECH:
SUBSCRIBE EDTECH firstname lastname
Example: SUBSCRIBE EDTECH Joe Byers

Type the command in the first line of the body of the message (not in the
subject line).

Note: Listserv will return a confirmation request to you before it adds you
to EDTECH. You need to reply with the single word OK or at times with
OK (code #) for it to finish verifying your address and processing your
subscription.

. To cancel your subscription:
SIGNOFF EDTECH

. To temporarily stop EDTECH mail (for example when you go on vacation)
SET EDTECH NOMAIL
. To restore your EDTECH mail service:
SET EDTECH MAIL

. To receive EDTECH in the format of a single long message daily, with a
table of contents at the beginning, rather than as individual messages.

SET EDTECH DIGEST

. To receive EDTECH in daily summary format, with just a listing of the
subject lines and instructions on how to order any individual messages of

208

interest or look at them on the WWW site.
SET EDTECH INDEX

Note: If your mail is returned to sender (bounces) for more than a day or
two, the EDTECH errors editor will set your subscription to INDEX for a
week. At the end of that time, if it still is bouncing, you will be deleted
from the list. If your account gets fixed, use the command below to return
your subscription to normal mail status.

To return a DIGEST or INDEX subscription to regular mail:
SET EDTECH MAIL

EDTECH keeps a plain text archive of every message sent to the list. To
find out which archived logs are available:

INDEX EDTECH

Note: A new log is created each week numbered with the year, the month

and the week.

For example, EDTECH LOG9602B would contain all messages sent during
the second week (B) of February (02) in 1996. At present Listserv keeps
about 6 months of back logs for EDTECH.

To order a log:
GET EDTECH LOG9602B

Substitute the correct log number for LOG96OZB.

 

If your address format has changed or due to minor problems with
your mailer, at times you may get an error message or no result for one

of these commands.

If you have difficulty using any of these commands, please write to the
EDTECH Moderator at 21765EDT@MSU.EDU for assistance.

209

 

 

 

 

EDTECH Editor’s
Style Guide

 

 

 

 

 

 

-._.——m.—._m -—_-_ “_—.—__....- - . _L...‘ I.._. a”.

Basic Format

An EDTECH Message should have the following basic structure:
[HEADER]

Date: Current date (supplied by e-mail program)

To: EDTECH@MSU.EDU

From: EDTECH Editor - Name <EDADMIN?@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Informative subject

[BODY OF MESSA GE]

 

From: FirstName LastNarne <userid@full.node>

This is the text of the new message from the current author. It should be the main
part of the message.

OldUserFirstName OldUserLastNarne <olduserid@old.node> wrote:

>only the necessary requoted lines
>from the previous message here.

Full subscriber signature
Full subscriber e-mail address

Notes on Header section:

Subject Line: Editors should feel free to change the subject line on incoming
messages to make them more clear and indicative of the content of the message.
Subjects that say only something like "Help" or "Emergency" or "Question from
New User" should be changed to reflect the nature of the problem. Abbreviations
in Subject: lines are acceptable for brevity, but not when the abbrevratron 18 so
obscure that few would know what it means. When the Subject line seems .
obscure, make it clearer. Avoid using subject lines that unnecessarily begin wrth
punctuation, asterisks or quotation marks. Archiving programs sort these as first
on Subject lists, and some readers have discovered this and attempt to include
these to give their messages an "advantage". Actually it makes the messages
harder to find by someone looking for a topic, and dependmg on spacmg, may
cause problems for indexing programs. In general change Subject lrnes that are

210

formatted in ALL CAPS to regular upper/lower case format.

The convention of using Re: at the beginning of subject lines of messages that are
responding to another post is preferred to other formats such as putting the word
-Reply at the end of the subject line because archiving programs are set to
organize message by threads based on the existence (or lack) of a Re: at the
beginning of Subject lines. Likewise, Re: should never be used at the beginning of
a Subject: line that initiates a topic, as then the archiving program will decide that
the message is a follow-up and not treat it as one that begins a new topic. When
alternative formats for Subject: lines are received, reformat them back to the
standard. After the initial subject line on a topic has been established, editors
should try to have all follow-up messages reflect it exactly, even when subscribers
try to change it. This will allow all the messages in the thread to be grouped
together. An exception to this is when the topic "drifts". If the editor notices that
people are no longer discussing the original topic at all, it is permissible to alter
the subject line to alert other subscribers that there has been a shift in the
conversation that they might be interested in. The subject lines can be completely
changed or it is can for awhile use the ‘was" convention, i.e., Subject: New Topic
(was Old Topic)

Keywords. Though EDTECH has not yet adopted a formal keyword system,

this may occur in the future. Remove keyword headings from cross-posted mail

from other lists, as they don’t conform to any EDTECH conventions and haven’t

been defined for EDTECH readers. EDTECH uses informal keywords on a few

Lypes of messages. These appear as the first word of the Subject: line in the
eader.

Position: For all job postings. Use Positions: if there is more than one job.

Introduction: Firstname Lastnarne
For any first posting that is mainly an introduction of a new subscriber.

Survey: To mark online surveys.
Greetings Request: To mark any request for greetings.
Summary: For summaries of responses given to a previously asked question

More informal keywords may be proposed and adopted in the future.

 

Notes on Body of the Message

From: lines
The first line of any message should read:

From: Firstname Lastnarne <userid@user.node>

211

The reason for this is that otherwise the archiving program will not be able to
determine who the actual author of the message was, and will instead list the
EDTECH Editor as the author. This doesn’t let people look up messages in the
archives by author name, and it also can confuse people about who wrote what.
The editor should paste this in (or type it) if the original sender doesn’t include it.
Since the archiver sorts by first name, it’s important to keep the syntax consistent.
If a first name is available, use that, and not abbreviations or titles. In general
delete Dr., Mr., Ms., etc. from the name. There may be some exceptions, for
example Sister, where it is thought that people probably generally address the
person in question with that title, e.g., Sister Anne Doe.

Also delete extraneous stuff (telephone numbers, job titles, institutional
affiliations, etc.) from the From: line in the body of the message.

Wine

The W archiving program was designed to pick up the LAST From: line it
sees in the body of a message, remove it from the WWW page display, and use it
as the From: line for the entire message. This can present a problem on quoted
From: lines and on cross-posted messages where the original From: line is lefi in
the body of the message.

There can be one and only one From: line in the body of the message, if we want
the messages to be archived correctly. When there are additional From: lines, the
editor should change the syntax on the additional ones. Recommended variations
include:

X-From: .....
* From:
Quoted-From:

Or anything that will change it so that the word From: doesn’t stand alone. The
archiver appears to ignore inclusion markers >, so >From: and > From: don’t
seem to work to get it to ignore a secondary From: line.

Quoted text: Many people quote all or most of a previous message in the body of
a new one. While some quoted text is useful to provide context, an overly large
amount just fills mailboxes, makes the digests too long, and takes up space in the
WWW archives (as well as making for hard to read messages).

Editors should cut back quoted text to include only what is necessary to provide
needed context for someone who enters in the middle of the conversation. It is not
necessary to quote the full signature (including quotations, graphics, etc.) of the
previous poster. In general the much simpler format that follows is preferred:

Firstname Lastnarne <userid@user.note> wrote:
> first line

> second line

> third line

212

 

Though some mailers are using variations on the > inclusion marker, most main
archiving programs still identify the > as the main way to identify quoted text and
often display text preceeded by > markers differently than other text. So where
possible, it is preferred that the editor stick to the standard format on messages.

Signature area: All messages should contain the name and e-mail address of the
sender at the bottom. Reasonable ASCII art, quotations, home page URL’s, and
other such information is OK. If clear commercial advertisements soliciting sales,
giving prices of items, etc. appear, either remove them or return the message to
the subscriber for changes, especially if it appears that the major reason for
posting the message was to display the advertisement in the signature. If it is clear
that the URL in the signature leads to a site containing pornography or other
materials likely to be very problematic for teachers using the list with students,
either return the message or remove the problematic URL from the signature. (If
the problematic URL is in the content of the message discuss it privately with the
poster rather than sending it out.)

Formatting: Return mail formatted in hypertext unless there is so little coding
that it is easy to remove. Don’t post messages that contain 2 versions of the
message (hypertext and plain text). Return them or remove the hypertext version.

Remove any attachments. EDTECH never sends out encoded attachments, or
binhex, MIME or uuencoded endings to documents.

If a message was written on a mail program that wrapped all the lines strangely,
making it difficult to read, or that put = signs at the end of each line and other
encoding in the document, the editor should judge if it is clear enough to be read,
or so badly formatted that it should be returned for reformatting. It is not useful to
send messages that are so long that no one will bother to read them.

Length: EDTECH has long had an approximately 500 line length limit. It is rare
that an individual would write a message that long. If the individual is posting a
conference announcement or reposting a paper other document, suggest an
abbreviated version, an abstract, or the URL of a WWW site instead, if it is so
long as to be unreadable. Many subscribers have limited mailbox space, and so do
not want to receive very long messsages, as they cause them to have full
mailboxes. Also many subscribers receive EDTECH in Digest format, and long
postings in the middle of a Digest make it harder to handle and read.

Languages other then English: Ask for a translation on messages posted in
languages other than English. EDTECH posts messages in various languages, but
only if accompanied by an English translation.

NOTES ON CONTENT:

In general, do not edit the original text of messages by a subscriber, as far as
content is concerned. It is acceptable (but not required) to correct minor
typographical errors or spelling errors, if the editor is positive these are errors and

 

213

 

 

 

not intended stylistic variations. If the content is unacceptable, return the message
for revisions instead of editing it yourself.

Humor: As long as it relates to EDTECH, humor is OK to a reasonable extent.
Watch for humor that is racist, sexist, ageist, etc., as this will envoke flame wars.
Also watch for reposting of c0pyrighted humor than may not have been
authorized by the original poster/copyright holder. Also watch out for "old jokes".
Some pieces of net humor circulate every few months and have already been
posted to EDTECH more than once. It isn’t necessary to post and repost the same
piece of net humor. Be careful that "humor" posted doesn’t go so far that there
would be tendency for EDTECH to be sued by someone because it was posted.

Hoaxes, Virus Scares and Chain Letters: Essentially never post calls for
monetary contributions, letter writing campaigns, etc. There are exceptions to this,
but there are numerous hoaxes with the premise that one should send money to
someone, or business cards, etc. There are also a number of hoaxes that circulate
saying that some organization has agreed to contribute something to someone if
everyone takes some action (usually redistributing the message). Calls for action
about children with cancer or some other deadly disease needing something have
generally turned out to be false.

Almost daily EDTECH receives one or two copies of the "Make Money Fast"
chain letter. Never forward this.

Most virus warnings relating to supposedly caught via e-mail are hoaxes and
should not be sent. Unless the virus question relates to a personal experience in a
real situation, it is probably a hoax. Even real experiences can be problematic if
the cause indicated is not correct, so be careful about what they say so that
companies don’t complain or sue us about false virus warnings.

A lot of the political action, write your congressman, etc. calls for action are false.
Check these carefully before considering posting them.

Any posting which says that the content, while doubtful, has been verified by
some authority (the computer center at MIT, the US. government, etc.) is
probably a hoax.

Spams: If someone has abused others on the lntemet by posting the same
messages to numerous e-mail groups, EDTECH generally doesn’t post it too. In
the case where the posting is highly relevant to EDTECH, an exception could be
made, but generally if the message was so general that it was posted all over the
Internet, it does not have sufficient EDTECH specific content for us to post it.

Commercial announcements: EDTECH doesn’t accept commercial
announcements, which we define as messages from individuals or profit making
organizations that offer to sell a product or service for personal gain. Non-profit
announcements are OK, though these should also clearly come from a non-profit
and have information as well as a sales pitch for something in them. EDTECH
does not exclude only large profit making organizations, but accept
advertisements from small ones because they aren’t making a lot of money
(though people will argue with you that you should). If an advertisement from

214

someone’s competition happens to get posted, this does not imply that EDTECH
will also post advertisements from all the competition, just to be fair. In general
an individual promoting the book he or she wrote, is an advertisement, even
though we would accept a recommendation from someone else.

Often someone employed by a company subscribes to EDTECH for the purpose
of responding to any question remotely related to the product sold by the company
with an endorsement of the company’s product. Watch for employees of a
company repeatedly endorsing their company’s product without providing much
other input—this is a form of commercial advertising. It is more acceptable for a
frequent poster to politely mention a product he/she is involved along with
offering other information and other forms of participation in the list, but be
careful this doesn’t go to far.

Personal Messages: Don’t post personal messages. This is sometimes a judgment
call. If there are personal comments in the message that don’t sound like they are
really directed to everyone on the list, all the message says is "thank you" with no
other content, the author of the message is suggesting to someone that he/she hire
the author, etc., it is probably a personal message and should be returned to the
author.

Flames: A level of civility should be maintained on the list, so any mail that is
intentionally insulting to an individual or displays a degree of emotion that would
tend to offend or upset others, might better be revised to show a more moderate
tone. Be careful not to post anything that appears slanderous or is designed to
obviously provoke damage of some kind to another, as EDTECH could also be
held liable for the consequences of such messages. If someone demands a
retraction or correction on a message, treat such a demand with care to be sure to
rectify any unfair consequences that may have resulted to someone because of the
posting of a message.

Messages from Minors: Do not publish the e-mail addresses or other contact
information for a minor. Exception: some high school students are EDTECH
subscribers and active participants. They can post like any other list member if
they seem to be using the list in an appropriate manner to discuss educational
technology. If, however, a request for key pals comes directly from a grade or
high school student, the editor should request a contact with a parent or teacher
before posting to be sure that the child will be able to deal with undesirable
responses, pornography, junk mail, and other items which could come into the
child’s e-mail because of the posting. In general requests for key pals, greetings
and other information to be directed to minors, should be sent to the mailbox of a
teacher or parent, and not directly to an e-mail address that a child might have, as
due to our cross-posting to Usenet News and WW archives, there is no way for
us to screen who might respond to postings made to EDTECH. The purpose of
EDTECH is not really to provide help with ordinary grade or high school
homework, so requests for general information, such as that one would ordinarily
find in an encyclo 'a, should generally redirect the child to his/her teacher,
:dardegt or school 1i rarian, rather than be published along with the child’s e-mail
ss.

One liners: One liners are generally not acceptable as postings. For example
messages that say only:

215

"Thanks"
"Amen"
"Me too"

"I agree! N

These should generally be politely returned with a suggestion that the subscriber
either elaborate more for the list or send the posting directly to the individual it
was intended for.

Personal Mail: Personal mail which requests an item be sent directly (responses
to offers of papers or other information) should be returned to sender for
redirection. Also other personal comments or information not likely to have been
really meant for the list should be returned.

Requests that anyone who responds privately to some other list message, also
send a copy of the response to the author become too complicated to post. Suggest
instead that the person explain and give additional detail about the problem he/she
also has and so evoke additional responses on the topic.

Comments about the list: Comments about the list, commands, or administrative
mail should rarely be posted. In general these are handled privately by the editor.
It is not necessary to ask the whole list how to sign off or change a setting to
digest, when the editor can help. Also it is not necessary to broadcast messages
like "Get me off of here, I can’t stand getting all this mail!" to everyone on the
list. Comments accusing the editors of censorship generally happen because mail -
was delayed or lost, and can be solved by finding and posting the missing
message (unless it was a commercial announcement.)

Occasionally the list will engage in a meta-discussion about how the list should be
run, but not often. This is mostly because such discussions tend not to be very
productive. Because of practical and economic reasons, most of the suggestions
are things the editors don’t have the time or resources to do. If someone has
sincere and reasoned suggestions or criticisms and appears to be someone who
genuinely cares about how EDTECH functions, we generally invite the person to
volunteer to help work on the area in question, rather then generating a general
debate among all subscribers.

At times, a meta-discussion about the direction EDTECH is taking might be
productive, and editors who feel the need for one on the list should talk over the
best way to generate and mange it.

 

Rev. 4/13/97

216

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

REF ERENCES

' Q ' ° ' , Third Edition. 1992.
Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version.

American Radio Relay League. (1946). IthacfiQAmatmfiiHandeQk. West
Hartford, CT: American Radio Relay League.

Ash, B. (1975). Eorcesnfithchrmceficlcmmfsciencefiction. New York'
Taplinger.

Association of African Universities / American Association for the Advancement of
Science. (1993). '
. Washington, DC: American Association

for the Advancement of Science.

Banks, Vickie. W. [Online] Available http://www.h-net.msu.edu/
~edweb, archives of May 1989 EDTECH, message dated May 1, 1989a.

Banks, Vickie. MW [Online] Available hrtp://www.h-net.msu.edu/
~edweb, archives of April, 1989b.

Banks, Vickie. March summary. [Online] Available http://www.h-net.msu.edu/
~edweb, archives of April 1989 EDTECH, message dated April 5, 1989c.

Banks, Vickie. Milestones. [Online] Available http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~ edweb,
archives of April 1989 EDTECH, message dated April 3, 1989d.

Banks, Vickie and Mark Rosenberg. (1989) Warren. Unpublished

manuscript.

Baumgmerd’ 86Payr,S. (Eds) (1995). Speakngmmdslmwnnthmcnnz
W. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understandinganifacilitatingadultlcaming. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments. Theoretical and methodological
challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. lmunalflf

LhclmingScienceaJQ), 141-178.
Burke, J. (1995). Connections. Boston: Little, Brown.

217

218

Campbell- Kelly M &A5pmy.W. (1996). WWW
machine. New York: HarperCollins

Casti, J. L. (1990). '
frantic. New York: William Morrow.

Choi, Seounghee. (1996). WWW

 

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Collins, M. P. 8: Berge, Z. L. (1996). Maihnglistmamuafomdnltlcammg. Paper
presented at the Eastern Adult, Continuing and Distance Education Research
Conference, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, October
24-26, 1996.

Cross, T. 3.. 85 Raizman, M. B. (1986). NmorldnngnclecttonicmailhanthQk

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Crystal, D. (1997). Ihcfiamhridguncxdopcdianflanguagaand ed.). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

Denning.P...J 8£Metcalfe.RM (1997) W

computing. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Dertouzos, M. L. (1997). Whatnzillbctflontthcnemorldnfinfonnationflfll
W. New York: HarperCollins.

Fraenkel, J. R, 8: Wallen, N. E. (1993). Homadasigrtandflaluatcmeatchin
wand ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

French, D. ,Howlett, M. L., Kaylakie, M. 8?. Stimmel, T. (1997, February). Amodcl
[On-line]. Available FI'P:

ftp:arch.su.edu.a . . .papers/frenchet-alntt

Gates, B. (with Myhrold, N, 8?. Rinearson, P”) (1995). Ihgmadahead. New York:
Viking Penguin.

Geertz, Clifford (February, 1997). Wired Magazine, 158.
Gergen.K.J- (1991). IMMIWW

New York: BasicBooks.
Gilster, P. (1995). War. New York: Wiley.

219

Gold, R. (1997) . [Online] http://www.parc.xerox.com/cdi/members/richgold/CDI-
BLUE/HI'ML/slidel 1.html

Goleman, D. (1995). EmotionaLintelligence. New Yorlc Bantam.

Hafner, K. 8: Lyon, M. (1996). WWW
Internet. New York: Simon 8c Schuster.

Hammersley, M., 8?. Atkinson, P. (1983). MW.
London: Tavistock Publications.

Harasim,L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles,L., 81Turoff, M. (1995). '
.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hardie, E. T. L., &Neou, V. (Eds). (1993). InmmmMailmglists (1993 Ed).
Englewood Cliffs, N]: P T R Prentice Hall.

Harrison, T. M., 8: Stephen, T. (Eds) (1996). '
' . Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Hart, M., 8: Lieberman, F. (with Sonnebom, D A..). (1991). W
celebrationntpcmssionandflmhm. San Francisco. HarperCollins.

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1989). Afitmmonanmtcnlmtalliteragaflhatmchfldmn
needtgkm. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hirschbuhl, J. J. (1994). Wm (6th ed.). Guilford, CT: Dushkin.
Hudson, D. (in association with eLine Productions). (1997). Refined. Indianapolis,
IN: MacMillan Technical Publishing.

Kaye. A R (Ed) (1992). Collaboratixcleamingthmnghmmpmenconimdng:
WW.B Berlin: Springer-Vedag.

LaQuey. T. (with Ryer, J.C.). (1993). WWW
mnghalnetmrking. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Levin,J. A., Harasim, K., and Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on
electronic message networks. In L. M. Harasim (Edn) thneEducatmn.

WW (Pp. 185-214). New York: Prager.

Mason,R., &Kaye,A. (Eds) (1989). Wind
mm. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

220

McLuhan. M. (1964). Understandingmediazlhearxmmmntman. Cambridge.
MA: MIT Press.

McLuhan, M, 8: Powers, B. R. (1989). ' ' ° '
. ° - st . New York: Oxford University Press.

Morris, M., 8?. Organ, C. (1996). The Internet as mass medium. [10p ..] loomalof
Comanmicauon [On- line serial] £20). Available: http: //jcmc. phuji. ac. il/
voll .issue4/morris. htrnl

Negroponte, N. (1995). Bdngdigital. New York: Knopf.

- Pamnder.P. (1995). WWW
prophocy. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Powem‘, M (1997) Homtapmgmmaadmralmmmmrnz Emeryville. CA Ziff-

Davis Press.

Rafaeli, 5., Sudweeks, F. ,Konstan,J. 8c Mabry, E. (1994). W
.[Online]
Available from ftpz//ftp.arch.su.eduau/pub/projectH/papers/techreport.txt.

Rapaport, M (1991). Compmumcdratcdmmnnmicanomfiullmhoatds,
mmmumonfemndngjlecttonicmaflaandinionnationretdflal. New York:
Wiley.

Rheingold, H. (1993).
frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Rojo, A. (1995). WWW. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Toronto. [Online] Available at http://www.oise.on.ca/
~arojo/tabdont.html.

Roszak, T. (1994).

. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

Shirky, C. (1995). W. Emeryville, CA: Ziff-Davis Press.

Sproull, L., 8?. Kiesler, S. (1991).
nemadtedbrganizadon. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

Slouka. M (1995) Warnithemddszfixbmpaccandthehghztcchmaum
reality. New York: HarperCollins.

221

Stoll, c. (1995). '
New York: Doubleday.

Sudweeks, F., McLaughlin, M., 8: Rafaeli, S. (Eds) (1997, February). Wand
Netplaxflimalgmupsnrtthalntcmet [On-line]. Available:
http://www.arch.su.edu.au/~fay/book-proposalhtml

Talbott, s. L. (1995).
QanidSI. Sebastopol, CA: O’ReillybCAssociates.

Tufte, E R (1983) Ihexiaralisplaijquantitatixeinfonnation. Cheshire, CT:
Graphics Press.

Tufte, E. R. (1990). Emsioninginformation. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Tufte, E. R (1997).
narmtile. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Turkle, S. (1995). Liteaonthesueenaldentinuntheagmimalmemet. New York

Simon 8C Schuster.

Wmograd, T., 8L Flores, F. (1987). '
foundamniQLdfiign. Reading, MA: Addison- -.Wesley

WW. (1962). Field Enterprises Educational Corp.

Zakon. Robert H. W44. (Updated August 25, 1997)
[Online] Available: http://info.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Intemet/History/
HIT .html, September 9, 1997

Zenhausern, R. (1997, February °
list_[Online]. Available ruaryftp: / / ftp arch. su.edu. au/ pub/ prOjectH/ papers/
zenhausem-bitnet. txt

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

||llHWIWill)HIHHHIHHHIHIll)lllHHlHllHlHlll