Mauri P. CollinsAdjunct Assistant Professor Northern Arizona University NAU Box 5751 Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5751 mauri.collins@nau.edu |
Zane L. BergeDirector, Training Systems UMBC - Dept. of Education 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore MD 21250 berge@umbc2.umbc.edu |
Cite as:
Collins, M.P. and Berge, Z.L. (1997, March). Moderating Online Electronic
Discussion Groups. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Conference. Chicago, IL. March 24-28.
AERA Session 40.35. Thursday, March 27th, 1997; 2:15 PM to 3:45 PM
Abstract.
This research is a pilot study to begin a comprehensive study of electronic
discussion group (EDG) moderators and their perceptions of their roles,
tasks, and responsibilities. The questions explored revolve around EDG moderators'
conceptions of their roles, their rationale for moderating or not moderating
discussion on their mailing lists, where they learned their craft, and where
moderating lists fits within the context of their lives. With such descriptions
of the tasks and roles of practicing EDG moderators, better training could
be developed for those teachers wishing to function effectively as on-line
discussion facilitators and moderators as part of their on-line teaching.
Findings included indicators of the roles of moderators acting a different
times and for different lists as a filter, firefighter, facilitator, administrator,
editor, promoter, expert, helper, participant, and marketer. The moderators
responding to this survey cited reasons an EDG should be moderated as keeping
the signal-to-noise ratio high; keeping the discussion focused within the
topic of the list's mission; keeping down "flames;" and digesting/editing
posts. Most learned to moderate by watching others perform those functions--rather
like apprentices, and either volunteered to be a list moderator, were invited
to be, or started their own lists. They cited the reasons they moderate
as including being work related, part of their leisure activity or both
work and leisure activity.
Descriptors: Computer-mediated Communication; Electronic Conferences;
Moderating/Facilitating Discussion; On-line Teaching
Over the past four years we have been interested in online teaching,
both as adjuncts to and replacements for face-to-face classrooms. We have
also been involved in the delivery of professional development seminars
using the electronic discussion group format. In reading the literature
in these areas, there are descriptions of the roles and responsibilities
of online teachers in course-related computer conferences (Berge, 1995;
Feenberg, 1989; Eastmond, 1992; Davie, 1989; Kerr, 1986 ) and a subset of
their roles and tasks are similar to those in our experience as public electronic
discussion group (EDG) moderators. Both face-to-face, classroom discussion
groups (Brookfield, 1990; Brookfield, 1986), and public electronic discussion
groups (Berge & Collins, 1995) appear similar to the extent that they
both involve social activity and discussion, are cooperative endeavors,
are usually rational and purposeful, are sometimes systematic and often
creative, require participation, involve formal or informal leadership or
moderation (Hyman, 1980, pp. 13-17) and are used by their participants as
venues for formal and informal learning (Collins & Berge, 1996).
This research is a pilot study that begins a comprehensive, quantitative
and qualitative study of a diverse group of EDG moderators and their own
perceptions of their roles, tasks, and responsibilities. The questions explored
in this pilot study revolve around EDG moderators' conceptions of their
roles, their rationale for moderating, or not moderating discussion on their
lists, where they learned their craft and where moderating lists fits within
the context of their lives.
More often than not, when conferences fail, it is because the person
in charge is unable to overcome the initial difficulty of transposing leadership
skills acquired in face-to-face settings to the on-line setting. . . . since
so few people have participated in computer conferences, it is often difficult
to find an experienced leader who knows the on-line equivalents of the codes
operative in face-to-face groups. Furthermore, the codes of on-line activity
are still very much in formation and to some extent every moderator contributes
to inventing them. (Feenberg, 1987, p. 177).
While published in 1987, in our experience the above is still true. In
the preface to the second edition of The Network Nation, Hiltz and
Turoff (1993) state that they were generally satisfied with the predictions
made in their earlier edition (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978) in all respects
but one: they would set the wide-spread networking of this nation a further
thirty years into the future, having under-estimated the rate at which this
innovation would be adopted. So individuals who have had an opportunity
to develop the skills Feenberg refers to above are still rare. Increasingly,
teachers are looking to computer conferencing to extend their instructional
realm in both time and space and this requires that they learn to transpose
their teaching roles and skills to an on-line setting.
On the surface, this transformation rarely appears to be problematical
to teachers. Enthusiastic faculty, experienced in face-to-face teaching,
who adopt computer conferencing are sometimes dismayed when their on-line
classrooms go awry. Feenberg (1986; Feenberg, 1987) suggests this is because
potential moderators are unable to overcome the initial difficulty of transposing
leadership skills developed in contexts that are rich in social signaling
(e.g. the tacit signs of approval like smiles, heads nodding in agreement;
frowns that indicate puzzlement or disagreement) to the "artificial"
setting of a computer conference where the very context of communication
and meaning-making must be explicitly stated and negotiated. Berge (in press)
speculates that those teachers who are philosophically oriented to student-centered
teaching may make an easier transition to on-line teaching as they are already
oriented to discussion and interaction. But regardless if the online teacher
is aiming to extend their classroom or to create a totally online environment,
where are they to learn the necessary skills for their online work?
As suggested by Rojo (1995) in the conclusions to her dissertation, with
a description of the tasks and roles of practicing EDG moderators in hand,
better training could be developed in the necessary on-line interactional
codes for those teachers wishing to function effectively as on-line discussion
facilitators and moderators, without their having to be put into situations
where they are themselves learners.
What are EDG and How Are They Used?
The EDG format is increasingly being used for the delivery of academic courses and programs, for online professional development seminars and for the implementation of discussion in courses delivered primarily through other media. For the purposes of this research we are defining "public electronic discussion groups" as publicly accessible on-line, topic-focused discussion groups to which individuals can voluntarily subscribe or can read in Web-form. Participant's choice of discussion list(s) is based on their interests, and their work-related, social and/or personal needs (Collins & Berge, 1996; Rojo, 1995) and the time available to read the volume of contributions turning up in their mailboxes. This makes EDGs different from classrooms where the participation is often involuntary and whose members' personal interests may diverge greatly from that of the teacher and the material being presented.
There are also significant differences and similarities in the power
and authority vested in the leadership of classrooms and EDGs. Both teachers
and moderators have authority vested in their positions by virtue of their
status: teachers control grades and the evaluation of student progress as
a representative of the accrediting institution. EDG moderators do not have
this evaluative nor credentialing role, nor the power inherent in it. They
can, however, by virtue of functions within the software that creates the
EDG environment, summarily remove a subscriber and thus eject them from
the discussion and prevent their return.
Teachers are employed by a credentialing institution and have certain
defined responsibilities for the way in which their teaching is conducted.
EDG moderators are responsible to a sponsoring organization - often a computer
systems support unit - for the technical management of their list(s), and
are often held responsible by the sponsor or by the online community members
of the EDG itself for the conduct of list members. Both teachers and moderators
can choose to center discussion and activities around themselves, or lead
from the sidelines through modeling and behind-the-scene facilitation.
EDG Moderators and Their Roles
While there is a growing body of literature that describes and prescribes
the functions and roles of online instructors, there is no similar body
of literature that specifically addresses the roles, tasks and functions
of online EDG moderators. The roles of on-line moderators appear to have
been articulated largely from the individual, personal experiences of those
who have performed those functions in their classrooms (Davie, 1989; Feenberg,
1986; Feenberg, 1987; Hiltz, 1994; Hiltz & Turoff 1978; Harasim, 1986;
Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff, 1995; Mason, 1990). This represents
a data set derived from a small group of very experienced on-line teachers
rather than from research that articulates and summarizes the collective
experience of a large and diverse range of on-line discussion group moderators.
McMann (1994) describes the work of several authors who characterize
traditional facilitation (i.e., facilitation prior to the advent of computer
conferencing). As he stated, many of the same roles, functions and tasks
that involve managing the content, process, communications, and decisions
are similar in either computer conferences or face-to-face learning. Still,
Harasim (1990) points out that the facilitator's skills need to be updated
and modified somewhat, and Feenberg (1987, p. 178) points out the critical
need for a moderator to be skilled in setting the contextual cues that establish
a shared communications model from which can flow the appropriate norms,
roles and expectations for an instructional setting.
In both distance learning and place-based learning, the more activities
that arise involving computer conferencing, the greater the need for skillful
facilitating, systematic designing, adequate organizing and planning for
a successful conference (Feenberg, 1986; Feenberg 1987; Feenberg & Bellman,
1990; Gunawardena, 1994; McMann, 1994). Several authors (e.g., Berge, 1994;
Brochet, 1989; Feenberg, 1989; Paulsen, 1995) have attempted to list, largely
from their own experience, many of the roles or functions of the computer
conferencing moderator. These include: assistant, consultant, contextualizer,
coordinator, discriminator, editor, entertainer, expert, explainer, facilitator,
filter, firefighter, goal setter, helper, host, intermediary, leader, lecturer,
manager, marketer, mediator, meeting chairperson, mentor, observer, pace-setter,
participant, promoter, provocateur, social host, tutor, and so forth.
Public EDG moderators are often volunteers who, on a daily basis, moderate
discussion in a myriad different on-line discussion groups and who have
accumulated many years of practical experience among them at this demanding
task.
It is this experience that our research seeks to capture and make explicit.
Feenberg (1986; Feenberg 1987) notes that the "usual way we learn to
play dominant roles is in our experience in dominated roles. . . the ability
to chair a meeting is widespread among people who have attended meetings;
and the ability to teach is readily cultivated by many who have been taught.
It is in the course of these experiences that participants acquire an understanding
of the implicit codes on the basis of which the group communicates"
(1987, p. 177).
Objectives
This research is a pilot study that begins a formal, qualitative study of a diverse group of EDG moderators and their own perceptions of their roles, tasks, and responsibilities. The questions explored in this particular research project are:
Methodology
A electronic survey comprised of 9 questions (eight open-ended and one
closed-ended) was sent as electronic mail to LSTOWN-L@sern.sunet.se (See
Appendix A). LSTOWN-L is a public EDG specifically for discussion listowners
and moderators, where the technical issues surrounding the administration
of discussion lists are aired, questions asked and responded to, and old
and new members of the group (n=550+) have access to the collective knowledge,
experience and wisdom of the group. Contributions to the list primarily
involve posting of facts or explanations of various features of the list
management software, tips or tricks to make list administration easier,
warnings concerning recalcitrant list users and computer systems that may
be causing large amounts of mail to be returned (which creates added work
for the list owner/moderator).
Over one hundred surveys were returned, with 73 usable surveys coming
from persons who moderate the lists they are responsible for. "Moderate"
in this case indicates that they take some active part in the day-to-day
discussion on their lists. This ranges through the set or any subset of
the following: reading every post prior to distribution; sometimes editing
and/or annotating posts; returning posts for rewriting; answering questions
off-line and redirecting messages; discarding messages that are outside
the topic area of the list; discarding messages that contain ad hominem
attacks, proprietary information or content that could bring unwelcome "official"
attention to the list; reading the posts and "digesting" them
(i.e. compiling several posts into a single message); posting FAQ regularly;
monitoring the discussion and "stepping in with a wry or gently chiding
remark from time to time as exchanges get heated" (L-Soft, 1996); contributing
in such a way that a sense of community develops among the EDG members;
regulating discussion of controversial subjects to avoid "flame wars"
(vitriolic, often vulgar or profane verbal attacks), and other related tasks.
The unusable surveys drew our attention to technical distinctions among several terms made by LSTOWN-L members:
1. A list administrator is a person who is responsible for the installation and upkeep of the list management software on a host computer. This person sets up lists, names them and assigns passwords. List administrators make sure that the software is functioning correctly and that there is an active connection with the Internet on lists that are external to the host institution.
2. A list owner is the person to whom "ownership" of the list is assigned by the line in the list header that says "Owner=." This person is responsible to the host institution for the list and is given specific prerogatives by the list management software, including adding and deleting members, determining how mail should be handled when sent and if returned, if the list is private or open to anyone to post, and if the list is moderated or unmoderated. A list owner is defined here as only dealing with returned mail and not taking part in the day-to-day discussion on the list.
3. A list moderator is the person(s) named in the "Editor=" line in the list header. This person is usually responsible, at the very least, for dealing with bounced mail, adding and deleting subscribers and any other prerogatives that the listowner (who may be the same person) affords them. On a moderated list all mail addressed to the list goes first to the person designated as "Editor," is then processed and distributed to the list by the list moderator. On a unmoderated list, mail is distributed immediately and automatically to all list members, and postings to the list are monitored by the list owner/moderator who may, or may not take an active part in the discussion.
(Note: Terms used here are for LISTSERV, but other software such as majordomo
and listproc have similar functions to "Editor=" and "Owner=.")
The returned surveys represented more than ten percent of the total list
membership, many of whom apparently do not moderate or facilitate discussion
on the lists for which they are responsible. Represented lists ranged from
those solely for the distribution of binary files for executable programs,
through lists that for the distribution of digests of other lists, those
compiled as newsletters to moderated and unmoderated discussion lists with
posts ranging from one or two a week to several hundred daily. From our
experience, this was a fairly representative sample of the range of both
lists and list owners/moderators.
The Respondents
The moderators surveyed were all members of LSTOWN-L, a discussion group
with over 500 members, designed for those who administer, own and moderate
EDGs. Of the 73 respondents 68 percent were either students, staff, administrators
or faculty at academic institutions (some respondents combined two or more
of the above roles); 8.2 percent were from business, 5.5 percent from industry,
4.1 percent from government, 1.4 percent were self-employed and 12.3 percent
did not respond. This is consistent with distribution of access i.e., proportionally
more educational institutions have Internet access than do business, industry
or government, although that is rapidly changing.
There was a wide range of length of time moderating lists: 30.1 percent
were new, with six months or less of experience; 28.7 percent had from 1-2
years experience; 6.5 percent with 6 months to 1 year of experience; 15.1
percent from 2-3 years; 16.5 percent had 3-4 years; and 6.8 percent had
five or more years of experience.
In this study neither gender, age nor academic degree were questioned as these were not considered to impact the particular areas under investigation. However, from the names of the respondents, it is estimated that less than two percent of the respondents were female.
What should the role(s) of a EDG moderator be?
This question was phrased to elicit what these respondents thought the moderator's role should be, whether or not they were in a position to actually perform the set or any sub-set of them. In Table 1 we have categorized them and show indicators from which the categories have been built.
Table 1. Moderator Roles
| Category | % of responses (n=156) |
Indicators |
| Filter (content) | 32.0% |
To make a higher signal/noise ratio; keeps advertising out; keeps out tasteless jokes; weed out irrelevant, impolite, illegal, etc. contributions |
| Firefighter | 14.1% |
Prevent flame wars; eliminate petty flames; keeps out ad hominem attacks; referees |
| Facilitator | 12.2% |
keep group focused toward mission (i.e., group leader); attend to interpersonal issues between group members (e.g. complaints) |
| Administrator | 10.3% |
Help with technical problems; archiver; delete/add members; "sweeps floor" |
| Editor | 9.6% |
At a minimum: to enhance the clarity of the posted information, (e.g., added references: headers, inserted comments in [brackets], reformatted text, clarified citations of other articles, ask authors for clarifications and/or rewrites, sometimes suggesting same |
| Promoter | 7.1% |
Generates useful discussion; finds and posts interesting posts from other sources |
| Expert | 7.1% |
Expert in field/manufacturers representative; evaluates accuracy of information in posts; answers technical questions; compiles FAQ |
| No role listed | 2.6% |
|
| Helper | 1.9% |
Help people with needs (more general than "Expert") |
| Participant | 1.9% |
Just like everyone else (as opposed to "Expert" or "Administrator") |
| Marketer | 1.3% |
Promote/explain list to potential members |
Criteria for moderation
"Filtering should be on the basis of specific, explicit criteria.
These criteria should be set out in advance, and should be drawn up in association
with the group's readership" (Respondent)
When the respondents were asked if they had a formal, editorial policy
49.3 percent said they had, 41.1 percent said that they had not, and the
remainder either did not respond, or moderated several lists, some with
and some without formal editorial policies. The percentage that claimed
informal editorial criteria against which they judged the appropriateness
of posts was 46.6.
Editorial policies greatly ease the moderation of lists, especially those
with controversial subject matter. Such policies can be disseminated frequently
to the list, and sent to all new members in response to their subscription
request. Editorial policies also serve to create cues concerning the context
in which discussion will occur and as Feenberg (1987, p. 178) suggests:
"These contextual cues establish a shared communication model from
which flows norms, roles and expectations." Participants' understanding
of what is expected of them is increased, and in the case of breaches in
the communication norms, editorial policies can be posted as a general,
non-personalized reminder to the entire community to re-contextualize the
discussion.
What is their rationale for their activity: i.e. why do EDG moderators believe discussion lists should or should not be moderated?
Moderating discussion lists, especially those with controversial content
can be harrowing and time-consuming--so why do it? Moderators appear to
value their own time and place a high value on keeping the "signal-to-noise"
ratio high. (This expression comes from ham radio communication where every
effort is made to fine tune on a broadcasting source to keep the incoming
signal clear and the amount of static and sound distortion low.) Part of
their concern stems from a desire to retain the number of subscribers to
their list, while providing a valuable service to their readers. For example:
"In the case of an announcement group especially, it should absolutely
be moderated. The items I've rejected have convinced me of that. Also, if
an announcement group does not stay on topic, people won't read it. Since
the very idea of such a group is to reach as wide an audience as possible
with pertinent information, the quality must be maintained or the audience
will desert the group. I have rejected various sales offers, chain letters,
and pyramid marketing schemes, all of which are clearly inappropriate for
an announcement group in a hierarchy devoted to technical topics" (Respondent)
Table 2. Reasons a list should be moderated
| Reason | % of responses (n=91) |
Indicators |
| Noise | 37.4% |
Keep signal-to-noise ratio high; orderly housekeeping; weed out irrelevant messages |
| Focus | 34.1% |
Keep discussion focused with the topic of the list, reduce FAQ; aid and promote worthwhile discussions of relevant issues |
| Flames | 23.1% |
Keep down flames |
| Timely | 2.2% |
Timely posting of announcements, working papers etc. |
| Legalities | 1.1% |
Keep "trade secrets" or proprietary information off list |
| Involuntary | 1.1% |
If list is not voluntary (i.e. work or school related) |
| Digest | 1.1% |
Digest messages, edit posts |
Many respondents felt that EDGs should not be moderated. There is a strong
cyber-cultural sense that a EDG belongs to the participants in the discussion
and that their right to freedom of speech should be vigorously maintained.
Moderation also takes time, can tie a moderator to their list as if it were
an inescapable daily chore and can delay postings to the list.
Table 3. Reasons a list should not be moderated
| Reason | % of responses (n=47) |
Indicators |
| Response time | 59.6% |
Slows response time; inhibits free-flowing discussion; avoid censorship |
| Time-consuming | 19.1% |
Consumes moderator's time |
| Ownership | 12.8% |
List belongs to members, adults are self-regulating |
| Censorship | 8.5% |
Resentment of moderator's censorship |
Learning their craft: How did they get started as moderators?
Feenberg (1986, Feenberg 1987) says the usual way we learn the behaviors
appropriate for those in dominant roles is to observe others in those roles
from our position as subordinates, very much like apprentices. So where
did these EDG moderators learn their craft? How did they initially become
list moderators?
One source of information on EDG moderators' technical tasks is detailed
in software manuals like L-Soft International's (1996) List Owner's Manual,
which devotes an entire chapter to the social and cultural niceties involved
in "Moderating and Editing Lists" and goes on to the specific
software commands and routines that must be used.
Many more learn from their experience as discussion list participants,
watching others moderate lists and then stepping into their shoes. Sometimes
moderators volunteered for the task after having been a list member for
some time and they felt the need to increase the signal-to-noise ratio;
sometimes they were asked to step up when an existing moderator stepped
down; and still others started their own lists, wanting the content matter
to be very specific, the discussion to be conducted in a particular fashion,
or so they could take a direct hand in shaping the list. The latter were
usually dissatisfied with the conduct of discussion on existing EDGs, or
had not been able to find a list that matched their specific interests.
Table 4. Reasons why moderators began
| Reason | % of responses (n=73) |
Example Indicators |
| Volunteer | 23.3% | "I volunteered because no one else would, and I'm at a hub site." "I volunteered, at the time the group was being discussed for possible creation." "The 'editors' were using an 'ad hoc' distribution system, and, due to technical considerations, it was 'clogging' part of the <name> network. I stepped in to provide a 'resource-efficient' distribution mechanism." |
| Invited to | 9.6% | "I was asked to do so by the previous moderator <name> when he thought it was time to pass it on." "I asked to be the moderator when the old one retired" |
| Started List | 52.1% | I was one of the people who proposed the need for the newsgroup, after seeing many postings related to the <list topic> in different groups on the net; I looked for a list with this purpose and couldn't find anything. I then rounded up a 'critical mass' and a willing host site and got it going; |
| No response | 15.0% | No response or unable to determine from response |
Where does moderating lists fit within the framework of moderator's lives?
For many moderators their work is a "labor of love" and they
devote many hours to reading and responding to posts to their lists.
Table 5. Where does moderation fit in their lives?
| Value Label | Valid % |
| Work | 28.8 |
| Leisure | 30.1 |
| Both | 09.6 |
| Not work, but it helps | 15.1 |
| Leisure, but done at work | 06.8 |
| No response | 09.6 |
For 38.4 percent of the respondents moderating lists is a work assignment,
or one that helps with their work; 36.9 percent view moderating as a leisure
activity, done both away and at work and 9.6 percent consider moderating
as a mixture of both work and leisure. List membership and moderating for
some is a way of keeping a finger on the pulse of their discipline or profession
or is used as if the list members were consultants or subject matter experts
available any hour, day or night to respond to queries with facts, techniques
or experiences. Other respondents likened their time spent moderating as
"hanging around the water cooler" or "in the lunch room"
at work where they were able to connect with others with similar interests
while physically remaining in situations where they may be without a contiguous
peer.
This research series is on-going and will elaborate on the questions
considered here with a larger and more diverse group of moderators. The
personal skills and attributes that EDG moderators believe best undergirds
effective on-line context-setting and discussion facilitation will be investigated
as will where moderators themselves learned their craft and their suggestions
for appropriate training activities ("if I only knew then what I know
now"); their suggestions for development of explicit training in the
skills of synthesizing and summarizing discussions threads--if indeed such
activity should be undertaken, and the maintenance of participation among
the voluntary participants of electronic discussion groups.
Berge, Z. L. (1992). The role of the moderator in a scholarly discussion group (SDG). [On-line]. http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/zlbmod.html
Berge, Z. L. (1994). Electronic discussion groups. Communication Education. 43(2), 102-111.
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology. 15(1), 22-30.
Berge, Z. L. (in press). Characteristics of on-line teaching in post-secondary, formal education. Educational Technology.
Berge, Z. L. & Collins, M. P. (1995). Computer-mediated scholarly discussion groups. Computers in Education, 24(3), 183-189.
Brochet, M. G. (1989). Effective moderation of computer conferences: Notes and suggestions. In M. G. Brochet (Ed.) Moderating conferences (pp. 6.01-6.08). Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (1990). Discussion. In M. W. Galbraith, (Ed.) (1990). Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
Collins, M. P. & Berge, Z. L. (1996). Mailing lists as a venue for adult learning. Paper presented at the Eastern Adult, Continuing and Distance Education Research Conference, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, October 24-26, 1996.
Davie, L. (1989). Facilitation techniques for the on-line tutor. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press.
Eastmond, D. V. (1992). Effective facilitation of computer conferencing. Continuing Higher Education Review, 56(1/2), 23-34
Feenberg, A. (1986). Network design: An operating manual for computer conferencing. . IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, PC29(1) pp. 2-8, March.
Feenberg, A. (1989). The written world: On the theory and practice of computer conferencing. In Robin Mason and Anthony Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press.
Feenberg, A. & Bellman B. (1990). Social factor research in computer-mediated communications. In L. M. Harasim, (Ed.) Online education: Perspectives on a new environment, pp. 67-130. New York: Praeger.
Gunawardena, C. N., (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 58-71.
Harasim, L. (1986). Computer learning networks: educational applications of computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1): 59-70.
Harasim, L. M., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Hiltz, S. R. & Turoff, M. (1993). The Networked Nation: Human communication via computer, (2nd Ed.) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hiltz, S. R. & Turoff, M. (1978). The Networked Nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hyman, R. T. (1980). Improving Discussion Leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kerr, E. B. (1986). Electronic leadership: A guide to moderating online conferences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, PC29(1) pp. 12-18, March.
L-Soft International, Inc.(1996). List Owner's Manual for LISTSERV, version 1.8b, Revision 3. [Online] http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/index.html
Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. [Online]. DEOSNEWS, 1(19). (Archived as DEOSNEWS 91-00011 on LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU)
Morris, M. (1993). E-mail editors: Gatekeepers or fac