… But First There Are the Communication Skills

We live in exciting days. Never has it been easier and cheaper to communicate. Instructors and learners can, provided that they have access to appropriate technology, now bridge geographic boundaries by using the advanced communication media and possibilities that we have at our disposal such as e-mail, fax, and computer conferencing. The new opportunities have led to a renewed and challenging interest in e-learn-ing (in most instances e-learning includes distance education) which depend on instrumentally rational and strategic actions that have to be imparted with the help of technology (Peters, 2000). However, new channels of communication do not necessarily imply better ones. The critical issue, from a communication perspective, is thus to deploy and integrate technology in such a way in the teaching and learning process that deep and meaningful learning takes place.

Contrary to many of the other contributions in this interesting journal, this contribution will not focus on communication technology itself, but will focus on those communication processes that are conducive to learning and instruction (i.e., that encourage and foster learning processes). We briefly discuss some theoretical aspects of communication and then bring into this discussion the opinion of distance learners from a variety of contexts and areas by presenting the results of a pilot study and a follow-up exploratory study of communication skills and processes in distance learning environments. The theoretical background and the results of these studies will lead to a variety of suggestions as to how to improve communication and thus enhance the learning experience of students.

The nature and quality of communication in various (learning) environments have been the focus of a number of studies and scholarly reflections over the past decades. We have selected from the contributions to this area of thinking three different but complementary perspectives that served as the impetus for the two research studies and for our recommendations.

Let’s first look at what happened some 50 years ago. About 10 years after World War II, the exciting possibilities that audiovisual instruction offered began to receive significant attention in teaching and learning environments. The challenges and opportunities audiovisual instruction offered, mostly through the development and expansion of radio and television networks, sometimes caused the practitioners to forget how important sound communication processes are and the role of communication as the glue that holds a system together.

The new opportunities to offer audiovisual instruction were accompanied by interesting thoughts that communication specialists and psychologists like Shannon and Weaver and Rogers developed. It started out in a very simple way with statements such as that a communication process involves a sender of a message, a receiver of a message, and content and that, if one of these three elements is missing, there cannot be any communication. Numerous subsequent theories and models of communication were based on this early work. By the end of the 1940s, Shannon and Weaver had developed a very simple communication model that basically looked at three elements: a transmitter who develops or produces a relationship (the signal) that travels to a receiver (Shannon & Weaver, 1963). Shannon had a personal and professional interest in communication, as he was a scientist at Bell Telephone Company.

Berlo (1963, who was a communication specialist, built on the work of Shannon and Weaver and identified two encoding skills: speaking and writing, and two decoding skills: listening and reading, and a crucial fifth skill that relates to both encoding and decoding: thought and reasoning. How we think, what we think about, and how we express our thinking are determined by our ability to use language effectively: we need to have the ability to encode the thoughts we have. Many of us have been abroad and have experienced the frustration of not being able to express oneself well in the language of the country that was visited. Finding the right word is not finding a word that expresses more our less what we want to say; it should have the same meaning for the “decoder” as for the “encoder,” in other words, for the person receiving the message as for the sender of the message. Berlo emphasized the importance of the relationship between the skill level of the receiver of the message and the source of the message, and thus draws our attention to the unpredictability of communication: an incapable decoder will find it hard to decode effectively.

Thus, how we see the world and how we think are not only affected by the codes we use, but also by how skillfully we use the codes. Berlo (1963) emphasized the importance of the quality of communication and saw the relationship between the source and the receiver as an important variable in the communication process. He had some words of warning for those who enthusiastically thought that all problems would be solved now that we had better communication means and media: “As a communication man I must argue strongly that it is the [communication] process that is central and that the media, though important, are secondary” (1963, p. 378).

These days, it is generally agreed that students do not only need effective communication to support the intellectual part of the learning process, but also in the affective area; that is, students need cognitive (academic) and affective (empathic) comprehension. Communication processes are related to building relationships, and relationships in turn are vehicles for growth (Rogers, 1969).

We will briefly discuss the contribution of Carl Rogers, a scientist with a background in psychology, whose work has applications far beyond the counselor-client relationships on which he based his research. A little later in this article it will be seen how the research that we conducted confirmed Rogers’ ideas and identified, among others, a general lack of emphatic comprehension in distance education.

We all agree that oral communication is often preferable to written communication. Oral communication includes the joy of hearing words that have inherent a timbre, sometimes a musical inclination, passion, care, and interest, but also can transmit worry, anger, or lack of passion. Spoken words may include more than the conscious intent of the speaker. Oral communication often offers the possibility to a direct reaction: a dialogue.

Rogers (1962) wrote a groundbreaking article in which he argued that the quality of the interpersonal encounter with the client, in our case the student, is extremely important to make it possible to build up a relationship and to make it possible for this relationship to grow in a mutually satisfying manner.

What we can learn from Rogers is that the way in which we communicate in personal relationships and in instruction is very important. He identified three behaviors that form the basis for successful communication: open disclosure, warm affirmation, and empathic comprehension. The first behavior, open disclosure, means that the relationship is mutual and is based on more than the minimum information to work together. If we look at a face-to-face class, many students have more information about the instructor than the bare minimum. Students often know where their instructors have studied, where they live, what kind of car they drive, what kind of sport they like and other, more personal, details. They meet their instructors at parties, seminars, and sport events. At a distance, that is more difficult. The absence of face-to-face interaction creates a barrier that makes it difficult and sometimes undesirable to engage in interaction on nonacademic topics. This causes the instructor and the student to stay, in the real sense of the word, at a distance and to maintain a relationship that is based purely on academic and professional dimensions of interaction. The second behavior, warm affirmation, relates to how student and instructor feel at ease with each other, how their relationship develops. Does it stay at a distance or does the student feel that the instructor is not only teaching or facilitating because he or she has to do it, or wants to earn some extra money, but is really interested in the student and has the wish to know the student better, not only as a “pupil” but as a person? The third behavior, empathic comprehension, refers to the capacity of the “other” (i.e., either the instructor or the learner) to place himself or herself in the position of the opposite party and to be understanding and partial of his or her position. Student and instructor should have the feeling that the other knows what it is “to be me.” Rogers’ empathy concepts are clearly aimed at dissolving alienation and at creating positive outcomes.

Holmberg (1986) noticed that communication in classroom situations often is conversational. Students and teachers/instructors participate in a process in which students—and possibly instructors as well—are learning through talking about a topic. There are questions raised and answers provoked. Handy (1992) describes a learning situation as a wheel in which questions lead to ideas, which in turn lead to the testing of the ideas to produce reflections, which in turn lead to new questions. Creating such a learning situation is not so easy in distance education. Students frequently study on their own, although these days chat sessions and instructional classes may be included in the e-learning process, but as we will later see when discussing the results of the two studies, do not necessarily reduce the sense of isolation. It is, however, also true that, at times, the spontaneous interaction so valuable in a classroom situation is absent, and this has consequences for the other dimensions of the instructional environment, such as critical thinking, spontaneity, and creativity, important ingredients to an enhanced learning process. In addition, instructors in a classroom setting may be more at ease to give “personal” examples from when they were students, from their family life, and/or from those little occurrences that have influenced thinking about certain things or have changed views. Instructors also have some basic information on the students. Is he or she punctual, difficult, widely read, understanding, or maybe stubborn?

Holmberg (1986) advocated the creation of learning situations that aimed at reducing the distance in distance education by simulating a conversation between student and instructor. He argued that learning materials should not focus exclusively on “transmitting” factual knowledge, but should act as an instructive conversation between instructor and a student or students, in this way creating some kind of virtual dialogue. In communicating with the student, the instructor should develop the feeling of personal communication, of belonging. Instructors should use clear and somewhat colloquial language, write in a personal style, and appeal to the student’s emotional as well as intellectual participation. The empathy of the instructor is, according to Holmberg, of particular importance. Empathy and personal approaches are thus considered guidelines for the presentation of learning matter in distance education.

Although Holmberg’s approach seems to be interesting and attractive, there are a number of observations to be made. First of all, there are considerable differences between teaching a face-to-face class and teaching in the distance education mode. Students—and sometimes instructors, too—face a transition from talking to writing, and from listening to reading about. This change may take time to get accustomed to. Many instructors, especially those new to e-learning, are better at explaining things orally than in writing. It may also be easier to show empathy and use colloquial language in a face-to-face situation than it is, for instance, online. Empathy, like spontaneity, cannot be produced on command. Many introverts have problems in expressing their feelings and sentiments, and this may be even more difficult in writing. It is, however, quite well possible to become better at written communication, to show more care and to be more approachable. As to the language used, a colloquial style may not fit every program, course, or instructional process. It is widely recognized that teaching advanced science using e-learning is not easy and needs not only special skills, but also a high degree of methodological thinking (Peters, 2000).

The work of Holmberg, Rogers, and others is no longer new, but many of the critical issues they and others have raised continue to be relevant and pressing today. In the second part of this paper we let the students speak and we will see that, in their analysis of communication in distance learning environments, there are key issues that are under-represented or missing in many e-learning environments. First, we very briefly discuss the support needs identified by students of three different universities (diploma courses) in an exploratory research study. This will be followed by the results of a follow-up study with students of three different universities. This study aimed at getting a better insight into the nature of the communication processes between the instructor and the student and the extent to which these communication processes conform with the expectations of Rogers and Holmberg, among others. After discussing the results of these studies we will make a number of recommendations to make online instruction more successful.

In this study, students at a distance university in Hong Kong, one in South Africa, and a third one in England were asked to identify their needs for student support (Visser & Visser, 2000). The three identified needs areas were the following:

• Cognitive communication and support. Cognitive communication and support could be enhanced through instructional strategies such as collaborative learning and required participation in online activities and, if applicable, in face-to-face sessions according to the students.

• Affective, motivational support. Students indicated that they were looking for an integration of affective and cognitive support. Interest in the student as a person was considered to be important.

• Communication strategies to ensure that students maintained involvement in the courses. Strategies that reduce the isolation of the student and that encourage a partnership between students and between student and instructor are needed.

There were obviously cultural differences. The students in Hong Kong wanted the instructor to take more responsibility for the students’ progress and eventual success. They suggested more contact, more feedback, and more monitoring of their progress. The South African students were, in general, less demanding. They were appreciative of the limited help that was offered, but would still welcome more personal involvement of the instructors. They were very positive about the research study, mentioning that they were honored that their voice was heard and as such felt that their problems—mainly dealing with lack of communication—would soon be solved. The students in England were generally satisfied, but expressed the feeling that more contact was needed between the instructor and the students, and that more emphasis should be placed on the student-student and student-instructor relationship.

This exploratory research clearly indicated the need for communication that would go beyond the traditional feedback and standard, often prescriptive, encouragement. The nature of the communication by the instructor, from a content perspective, was seen as important.

In order to get to a better understanding of the importance of communication in distance learning environments, a further study was undertaken. This study sought to determine to what extent communication, or lack thereof, is an issue in distance learning and online programs, and to what degree there was, in the interaction between students and instructors, evidence of Rogers’ three communication behaviors. Table 1 shows how these behaviors were operationalized.

The second study took place in 2001/2002 and involved two universities in the United States and one university in England. A total of 122 distance education students received a questionnaire with 32 open- and close-ended response questions. These questions focused on a variety of issues related to various dimensions of the communication process, including the nature, the quality, and the frequency of the interaction, and the extent to which students’ expectations as to student support were met. The response rate on the questionnaires was 53% (Visser & Visser, 2001).

A summary of the study indicated that:

• Communication is considered important to very important by 82% of the students.

• Communication between instructors and students is, in 80% of the cases, initiated by the instructor. Students rarely took the initiative to be the first one to get in touch with the instructor.

• Less than two thirds (62%) of the students received timely information on how to contact fellow students. As a result, there was not much interaction between course participants in the first week of the course. However, once a “dialogue” between and among students got going, most of them engaged in it.

• Only 10% of the students did not contact their fellow students at all during the course.

• The speed of reply of the fellow students was better than that of the instructor.

• Most instructors provided some information about their professional/personal background. The nature of the information received was, however, considered to be less than in traditional learning situations and less personal.

• For four out of every five students (81%) the interaction between the instructor and the student was limited to twice a month.

• The bulk of communication between students and instructors took place by email. Instructors made limited use of other tools and technology available in many online teaching environments.

• Most students considered the quality of the communication more important than the frequency of the communication.

• Communication with fellow students is considered less important than communication with the tutor.

• Students on the whole felt quite comfortable to discuss academic problems with their instructor. In contrast, only just over 10% of the students indicated that they felt free to approach the instructor with personal problems (e.g., financial or time management-related problems).

• Just over 60% of the students reported having had one or more instances of miscommunication with their instructor; miscommu-nication being defined as instances in which they felt that what they had attempted to convey had been misunderstood or misconstrued, or had resulted in a totally unexpected response.

• Half of the 40 students who reported having had some mis-communication with the instructor indicated that this had negatively affected their motivation. As a result of this occurrence, they had felt less inclined to get in touch with the instructor on subsequent occasions, felt insecure, and/or (temporarily) experienced a loss of motivation.

By contrasting the remarks made by students with key elements in Rogers’ model, we can conclude that, although aspects of the disclosure, affirmation, and apprehension dimensions were present in the communication process with the students, there are evident and sometimes critical shortcomings in the open, warm, and empathic components. In other words, there is a reasonable amount of communication going on, but it does not meet the expectations of the students in terms of the quality of the interaction and the degree of comfort and motivation provided. These are, therefore, the aspects that this study indicates have to be strengthened.

Instructors and planners can address these shortcomings in the following practical ways:

• Provide training in the form of guidelines/handbooks/seminars to instructors and mentors on effective and efficient ways of communication, including guidelines on etiquette.

• Collect information on the expectations and the requirements of students.

• Offer a session or set an assignment at the beginning of the course that teaches students about the etiquette of communication.

• Make use of the full range of relevant communication possibilities in online courses such as chat rooms only if these provide meaningful interaction. Requirements for students just to make postings for the sake of having them “interact” are not conducive to the learning process and do not contribute to the students’ satisfaction with the course.

• Do not copy the teaching style you use in a face-to-face classroom; use only those elements that enrich the e-learning environment.

• Make sure that communication serves to create a shared experience (active) rather than an experience that is shared (Schrage, 1991).

• Consider language as more than a tool for communication; use it as a tool for collaboration

• In the formative feedback of the course, include concrete elements that assess the quality/frequency of communication and students’ perception of these elements.

Effective communication is results-based and requires careful and profound reflection on how, when, and what to communicate. Interactive technologies can greatly increase the possibilities for personalized dialogue and for active participation in learning processes. E-mail messages, newsletters, telephone meetings, and computer conferencing can be very effective to enrich the learning process and to increase students’ (and instructors’) pleasure in doing a course. A “just in time” personal note to a student can do wonders. The dedicated and caring instructor should make sure that all available communication means are used effectively to increase the quality of the learning and teaching environment. Awareness of the opportunities that adequate communication processes offer to enhance the e-learning environment will, in an important way, contribute to bringing about deep and meaningful learning.