0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

Before reviewing responsible and responsive e-mail greetings it is important to understand respectinthegreeting.Individualswhohave“titles” should be addressed by that title. An example for thisisthenumberofsoldiersreturningfromactive duty. They may be in a situation that they are still on duty and have served their country well even with resulting injuries. Addressing them as LT or SGT can demonstrate respect from the instructor. In addition there are other means by which respect can come across to the students.

Older adult students may be called by their first names by professors. On the other hand professors may require or expect that Billy who is 60 years old or Mary who is 48 call them by their professional titles. Although there is nothing new about this issue, it becomes very evident in a situation where written communication is the primary source of communication. As the professor continues to call students by first names in the communication, there may be the feeling that indeed the student warrants a “Mr.” or a “Ms.” in the e-mail. It is something to contemplate in the area of respect.

Certainly one area often debated and which reaches limited resolution is the informal greeting usedbysomesuchas“hey…wantedtoletyouguys know…” These types of greetings are debated in the sense that some propose these help the student to understand the professor is with the times. The opposite view is that sometimes extremely informal greetings can confuse the reader. The readermayfeelthattheclassissimplya“buddy” situationandtheprofessorisa“personalfriend.”

Perhaps many of those reading this chapter and who have been professors may see that we may strive to be in the middle. We want to be up on the times and show the students our interest in their lives. However, we want them to know that we are ethical and will uphold our institution’s standards of teaching.

Now that the discussion has centered on issues in regard to greetings, there is need to examine the responsibleandtheresponsivegreeting.Although

these two words appear the same, they are indeed different and are both important to the faculty memberwhosetsthetonefortheclassthatisbeing taught online or the advisement that is being provided. Initially it is important to closely examine the responsible greeting. This greeting assumes that the faculty member is fully responsible for word choice both in the greeting and in the entire body of the e-mail communication.

Responsible greetings are sometimes overlooked in the sense that the faculty member may be in a hurry to respond to the student and can easilyoverlookthegreeting.Thegreetingprovides three distinct impressions to the reader:

1.The writer cares or does not care about the student as a person

2.The writer does remember the student

3.The writer does respect the student’s opinions and academic work

The faculty member may indicate in the greeting comments about such areas as the student’s illness, problems the student has had recently, or some e-mail that was notable. This sets the tone that the faculty member does indeed separate the student from the other students in the sense of the student’s individual needs. This can be done in as little as one or two short sentences. Comments to the entire group of students in one e-mail can also be made using this concept. They can all benefit from a greeting that acknowledges their class as being unique from the professor’s other teaching assignments.

The professor could begin the e-mail by mentioning such things as, “Sorry that you missed last Tuesday’s e-mail assignment …I hope you aredoingbetter.” Inaddition,suchcommentsas,

“Glad to receive your e-mail, I enjoyed reading your last critique of the situation in Europe,” can be very encouraging. Finally, it may be useful to acknowledge the students problems with the last e-mail and then proceed with the updated version. An example may be something to this

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

effect, “Mr. Smith, glad to hear the assignment is coming along well. As you know I was disappointed with the last assignment and am looking forward to seeing your latest one.”

Certainlyresponsivegreetingsaredifficultto initiate if the faculty member has not been on the system in several days or has allowed too much time to elapse. This type of greeting implies that it has not been long since the faculty member and the student have communicated. It reinforces the point that the student has responsibility to maintain timely communication. Sometimes it has been clear that the student has been away or has had some issues that have severely impeded the response or initiation of electronic communication.

It is agreed that some of the issues provided by students may be spurious or inconsequential. However, it is true that life does come at you fast and there will be issues that are affecting the outcome of a course. Therefore, responsive greetings aretimelyincontent.Itprofitslittletorespondto a week old e-mail about a person’s cold or minor health issues when likely it has subsided. In addition, responsive greetings acknowledge the time line. Sometimes this helps the “tardy” student to realize where the student is in the course.

Faculty may use the responsive approach in almost every manner, particularly in reigning in students who may hide behind electronics as an excuse or crutch for slow work performance. Alden (1998) points out in his book on training in Web based instruction that we should ask specific questions about the “lurkers” situation and progress. One issue that sometimes frustrates faculty members who are trying to maintain close communication with the students is that some students use various ISPs and then close the accounts. What can happen is that the students e-mail the professor but they seldom check their college or university e-mail account and may not forward their academic account to their personal e-mail. The faculty member continues to reply to the student’s college account and the

account begins to fill and the box is overloaded with unread mail.

In the case above, both the student and the professor have a tremendous amount of frustration. The faculty member continues to send the material or responses and the student has not acknowledged receipt. This may continue until the faculty member or the student realizes that the method for communication in the class or in academic advising is the college or university mail system.

How long could such a comedy of errors continue in an academic environment? It could last way into the semester. Some classes, taught by distance faculty, find that students continue to bypass the university e-mail and struggle because they are not receiving updates. They never set up their university e-mail system! Although these are extreme situations, it is recognized that Murphy’s Law continues to work overtime in the electronic world.

Whatever the situation, the greeting in an e-mail continues to be extremely important. Not only does it set the tone for the message, but it also provides the opportunity for the faculty and students to remind one another of their shared environment and bond with each other through electronics.

Message

The second part of the GMRC is in reality the

“body”orthemessagethatneedstobeconveyedto thestudent.Oncethe“greeting”hasbeenmadein the e-mail it is important to move to the essence of the message. This is the second step in the GMRC model and it is a particularly important part of the communication. Simply sending messages to send messages is not what the faculty member has time to do. So, there must be a clear reason why the e-mail has been sent.

Although it is not in the context of this chapter to discuss the title of the e-mail, it is important that the title line be clearly something to remove

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

it from the appearance that the message is spam or is not important to the course. Therefore, the title must be related to the message. Good strong and eye-catching titles are imperative such as

“history examination review,” “mid-term math information,” or “spring advisement” may be very useful to the student.

Titles that do not convey the content of the e- mail or which do not separate it from the normal inbox materials may go unread and the professor’s message will become lost in cyberspace. Titles such as “hello class,” “hi team,” or “another e- mail” may not always spark an urgent response.

Students receive as much or more spam and e- mails than do faculty members so it is imperative that the student knows the e-mail is important and timely.

A final point regarding the title as related to the “M” or message in the GMRC model is the potential use of a time sensitive date in the title of the message. If the faculty member is discussing an upcoming examination it can be useful to indicate “mid-term examination for March 28th.” Although not always necessary to include a time in our title, it is our desire to help students excel in learning and such a reminder may spur a student to update the student’s calendar. This will help the student to be more attentive to upcoming academic benchmarks in the course.

Moving back to the discussion of the “M,” there are several issues that must be addressed. First, the message must be written with positive guidelines and expectations as opposed to writing e-mail with what not to do or negative expectations. Teaching a course is also modeling behavior that is expected in the academic environment. By providing clear expectations in the “message” part of the communication, the professor provides the guidelines and information necessary for the student to respond and fully understand the implications of the message in the professor’s course. Ambiguous messages or messages that are too lengthy may be too much for the reader to absorb.

At times a faculty member may be asked by potential students to tell them about the college major or discipline that the faculty member represents. In general, the best response will be to give them some basic guidelines in the first message.

The major details of the degree program might not beaddressedinthefirste-mail. Instead, providing a link to a Web site and directions from there to obtain the information can be useful. Too much informationintheoriginale-mailtakesthechance of misrepresenting already clear information in the online course or the Web site information. It remains more positive to use the already “clear” explanations in existence and refer the student to those along with a brief explanation. This does help avoid duplication and lengthy e-mails. It is best to simply show the way and not clog up the system with more redundant explanations.

Attempting to avoid negative information in providingdirectioninthe“message”issomething that is noble in its intent. This can help to shape the relationship between the student and the faculty member. Indicating “for full credit consideration the assignments must be submitted by …” is much more tolerable than “don’t forget to do the assignment on time” or “ too many have been late and I can’t accept that anymore.” Although professors are “human” in the sense of showing anger or frustration, they set the standard. Part of that standard is to teach students civility and respect, which remains an element of discussion withintheacademicenvironment.Theprofessor’s ability to continue modeling positive communication is a gallant attempt to address society’s problems one at a time.

How much information is too much information in the message? Normally e-mails are not intended to replace other information sources such as information in the course management system being used. However, in teaching a class the individualization of the work for each student must be to some extent truly individualized with e-mailcommunication.Therearethreeguidelines to consider in dealing with the information level in an e-mail response:

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

1.Is the information located somewhere else electronically where a student may be directed easily?

2.Is the information something that has been repeated before, indicating that a richer means of commutation needs to be utilized, such as a phone call?

3.Is the information provided in the e-mail essential or could be it be shortened and the same information be conveyed?

Finally, in dealing with the message content, canthewriterastheprofessorunderstandthemessage? Is the message so disjointed that it makes little or no sense when read for understanding? As established in communication studies, there are obligations both for the sender and receiver.

The final check prior to the e-mail being sent should be for the clarity of the content. It is possible using the GMRC model that all sections are well written and complete with the exception that the message section is disjointed! It may not be obvioustothewriterbecausetheinstructorknows what he or she wants to say. However, it may not be understandable to the student!

Reminder

Once the message has been provided, there will generally be something the professor may want to provide that particular student in regard to the class. Although some could argue this part of the model might be redundant or unnecessary, it could also be that it provides one last opportunity for the student to receive some positive strokes or some information that the student could have overlooked. The reminder needs not be something that is extremely weighty or for that matter immediately germane to the topic discussed. It should be something that is a helpful reminder and demonstrates individuality of the e-mail.

In classes taught by the author or in response to undergraduate students, they are often reminded of the cooperative education project course they

will need to enroll in during their last semester. Although not critical to remind them in the e- mail, the weaker students will be greatly helped with this. At times they are overwhelmed with information and their planning skills are lacking.

A friendly statement or “reminder” in the e-mail can be very helpful. Perhaps that one statement will help to put a person on track and promote that person’s collegiate education more than even suspected.

A simple statement could be, “I noted that you were fairly far in your degree program and wanted to mention that you might benefit by checking the information on our Web site in regard to our internship.Itwillbecomingupsoon.”Thisstatement format is one the author has used to encourage students to prepare for other courses while completing the current courses. In our degree program the internship is an important part of the program, therefore this simple statement can really benefit our students in looking ahead.

Other short statements in the reminder section of the GMRC can be useful. Some professors may want to mention their examination date in a homework assignment. Again, this can be something individual for those students who are having a difficulttimeoritcanbeablanketstatementthat is designed to cover the entire class. Some of the potential uses of the reminder are:

1.Examinations

2.Projects

3.Discussion room responses required

4.Change in professors response days for e- mail or phone calls

5.Indication of new class beginning next semester

Although most of these may be on the class syllabus, a reminder may be very helpful for those who have schedules that are completely filled.

At this juncture it is important to address the criticism for “babying” the students in using the reminder method. It is true that much of the “re-

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

minder”maybematerialthatisnotessential,but positive to provide. Students who have difficulty may have their lives changed simply because one professor did provide more information than was necessary in a course. This willingness to travel the “extra mile” is time consuming on an individual basis. However, students may wake up and provide a positive response after receiving such information.Intheauthor’sexperience,mosthave been very receptive to this reminder and none of the students receiving the responses have been offended or hostile in their reactions.

conclusion to Model

The final section to the GMRC model is the conclusion. Although this seems to be an obvious part and perhaps not a too important section of the model, it must be defended. The model is incomplete without an appropriate conclusion. This conclusion is the last opportunity to summarize the contents of the “message” section of the e-mail. It provides the last opportunity for the person to understand the importance of the e-mail and act on it or respond appropriately to the content of the material.

The professor who authored the response should not be expected to repeat the entire e-mail the way we often do in conversation as we say

“well the reason I came by was to…” then later we indicate several times again “I just wanted to come by and…” The e-mail conclusion in the GMRCmodelmustnotberepetitive,ratheritmust be reinforcing. It is a brief reinforcement of the important message the professor has provided. It can be reinforcing in several ways that can be reviewed.

First, the conclusion can be utilized to reinforce the date some assignment is due or when the work as indicated in the message is supposed to be online. An example of the response could be, “Mr. Simon, don’t forget that I will send the test online on Thursday, January 15th.” Second, the conclusion can be an excellent reinforcer of a

student who is achieving more in the class, such as, “Ms. Kellogg…I wanted to say again that your latest work is exactly what I am seeking in the course.”

Ultimately the conclusion can provide two othertypesofinformationasthee-mailconcludes. If the student has tremendously excelled in the course or the last assignments, it may be such a statement as “I will post some additional material on the Web this week. I wanted to assure you that you were doing excellent work and I am very glad you are in the class.” On the other hand, the message could end with a little less positive tone, “I am very sorry you have had trouble meeting the deadlines on the system, I am confident you will get back on track.”

All of these conclusions are clearly requiring the professor to analyze the student’s individual needs. With large advising loads or classes that are more than 25 members, it is very difficult to address a personal matter in the conclusion. Some professors have been led to believe that teaching online or advising online will be easier and will not take the time that face-to-face advisement or teaching will require. This is certainly not true if the students are given the attention and concern as discussed in this model.

using the gMRc

example i

The GMRC model is designed to begin using immediately and can be included in a professor’s e-mail habits very quickly. However, it is understoodthatelementsmaybeleftoutwithoutpractice and when the pressure of the semester becomes difficult. The model’s benefits will not totally be seen until the practice becomes second nature to the professor using the model. This section will take a number of common scenarios and apply the model’s steps in order to demonstrate the utility of the model.

0

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

The initial example is of a professor who has a student who has demonstrated excellent communication online and who has been attentive to the work, yet who has not been able to provide strong papers. The occasion is that the professor of history is trying to contact the student after the student questioned the grade of 70 on the last e-mail assignment.

The professor responds to the student as listed below:

“Mr. ______,

I am glad to hear from you in regard to your recent grades and the work you are doing. It is always helpful to know where you stand in the class. I looked at your score and the work that you submitted and found two reasons you were having trouble with the piece why the North won the Civil War. First, you did not examine the industrial might the North had in comparison to the South. Second, although you mentioned the British and potential recognition of the Southern government, you did not search out some of the reasons the British were reluctant to recognize the South. Leaving out both of these reasons made your paper less complete. As you know, we have two more reflection papers coming up so you can bring up your grades. Stay in contact and revisit the reasons the North won which will help you on the final.”

Looking at the e-mail sent by the professor we see all four parts of the GMRC utilized. First, in the “greeting” the professor acknowledged the student’sdifficultyandthestudent’sconcernover thegrade.Inaddition,theprofessorwassupportive of communication. This made the greeting a little longer than it may take in some cases. However, it also gave the student some positive feedback in a negative situation.

In regard to the “message” in this example, the professor was succinct in what was said and the problems were clearly provided. Instead of mentioning that the student simply had problems

withthework,specificshortcomingswerelisted.

This type of response gives the student something to research and also to go back and review.

The “reminder” section of the message gave the student both information that there were two more assignments due and also hope for the student that the student could bring up the overall grades for the course. This is an important part of the “reminder” in this type of situation.

The professor may perceive that the student is overwhelmed with school and the chance of late papers may be an issue. In addition, the idea of bringing the grade up was something the student may seriously need to hear.

Obviously,the“conclusion”inthee-mailrevis- itstheproblemthee-mailaddressed.Thestudentis remindedoftheproblemsthatwereinexistenceon the paper and was told that these issues will again be addressed on the test. Therefore, the student now had reason to acknowledge the problems in the paper. In addition, the professor made it clear that the student could ask more questions when it was said to “stay in contact.”

example ii

Many times professors may simply send out e- mail to those who are having problems with the course. This is not unusual since those who are doing well require less time and may learn “in spiteoftheprofessor.”However,thereismeritin trying to contact those who are doing well and encouraging them to strive even harder to learn not only the material for the course but other issues related to the subject. Perhaps this type of solid reinforcement should be used more often, especially in an electronic environment. This can help to bond the professor and the students and build rapport for the next course.

Thisprofessor-initiatede-mailcouldbewritten in the following manner. Notice that this e-mail continues to address the student by the student’s last name. This is something each faculty member needs to fully implement or ignore. It is not

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

equitable to call some students by their last names andthencallothersbytheirfirstnames.Wemust have a personal policy that is consistent. This informational e-mail is unsolicited and would go to the student whenever the professor wished to commend the students. The following is an example of an unsolicited e-mail with all elements of the GMRC.

“Ms. _____,

I hope you are doing well this week! I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that your work on our thought papers has been outstanding. You have hit the nail on the head in regard to the beliefs that Dr. Glasser has proposed in his new book.Yourcritiquesofhisworkandtheothertwo were very strong. Registration is coming up and I hope you consider more advanced counseling courses. Again, I am pleased with your work in the course…keep it going!”

The analysis of this communication demonstratesafriendlyandshorter“greeting.”Although any e-mail may have a friendly greeting as demonstrated by this model, it is evident in this e-mail that the professor wants to put the student at ease. Certainly some students who are high achieversmaybe“TypeA”individualswhomay immediately spring to action with contact from a professor. Therefore, this greeting is one that is designed to put the person at ease.

The “message” in the model is clearly stated.

The student knows from the outset that the student hasachievedandsurpassedtheexpectationsofthe class. The student also knows that the professor was particularly interested in the work on William Glasser since his name was chosen above the other two. This also helps the student to realize that if the work on Glasser was named then the student should model the work on that assignment for the future. It was perhaps a hidden message, yet it can be a strong one.

The“reminder”partoftheGMRC was going inacompletelydifferentdirectionthaninthefirst

example. This reminder is recruitment for solid students by the department. It is also an indicator that the student could consider counseling as a major course of study. The strength of this

“reminder” following the other positive strokes can only endear the student to the department and peak the student’s interest.

The“conclusion”sectionofthemessagereinforced the “message” and also made it clear that success was doing what the student was already doing. This was a short and to the point conclusion that still demonstrated warmth.

example iii

In a distance learning course it may be difficult to determine if a student has some personal problems that are impeding progress in the class. Because the professor does not see the student on a regular basis and sometimes never sees the student, it is difficult to read the body language that may clue in the educator to some serious problems. On the other hand, it is not uncommon that some students may report more than expected about their situation. The next several examples will deal with self-reporting and also when the professor suspects there may be some issues that the student is confronting.

In the arena of self-report, a student may review an assignment much like the counseling assignment that was discussed in Example II. After reading and reviewing the assignment, the student may begin to self-diagnose and selfdisclose. The author remembers one student who became so distraught in writing her life history that she indicated she could not continue. Therefore, intervention was required. The problem is compounded when the student is thousands of miles away in an electronic-based course and the professor knows the student only by electronic messagingandoccasionalphonecalls.Thismakes itdifficulttodealwiththeissuesandoffersound professional advice.

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

The following is an example where a student e- mailedtheprofessoraboutaseriouspersonalproblem of spousal abuse. This was the response:

“Ms. ____,

I am glad you shared your situation with me and I want you to continue to feel free to share this difficult situation with me. Let me first indicate that I am not a licensed counselor or health professional. However, with that said I still have some concrete suggestions for you. First, your local police department has a unit that deals with spousal abuse. They can provide you information and a place to stay to get away from the situation. Second, there are also counselors that your city has on staff to work with individuals like yourself. I checked the Internet for your city and noted this information and am providing you these phone numbers ___________, _________. Third, it is also good to contact close friends so you will have a support system that may include the religious community if you are members of a particular religious group. Finally, I believe you need to act now to check into these situations. In the event you cannot finish this course on time, I will certainly offer an “incomplete grade.” Please keep me informed and I hope you will take my advice as quickly as possible.”

Thisexamplewasadifficultsituationandone that may warrant a phone call. However, because of the difficult situation the professor may reject the phone call idea in the event the spouse was there and the student could not talk. Certainly there is an e-mail risk; however, the student must have felt safe since the topic was raised in the e-mail. The “greeting” was an inviting statement that let the student know that it was “ok” to share the information. In fact, it was more than

“ok” in that the professor said the student could continuetocorrespond.Therefore,the“greeting” was both an indicator of help and of security to the student.

The“message”inthissituationwasastrongly worded step-by-step guide for the student. The professorwentoutofthewaytoevenprovidephone numbers for local help obtained from an Internet search. This is very useful since sometimes those hurting have a difficult time actually making the first call. The message also was clear to indicate that the professor had no special credentials that made the professor able to provide solid specific advice. Instead, the professor was referring some place specific for the student rather than saying “go get some help.”

In regard to the reminder, this was not as clear in the message. However, it could be said that the sense of urgency was a reminder and the student could receive an “incomplete” grade in the event that it was too stressful or difficult to finish the course. This is something a student may already know due to policy. However, it is always positive to mention this during such a crisis.

The “conclusion” in the GRMC model reaffirmedthatthestudentshouldstayincontactand also that the advice given should be followed. Certainly this conclusion enables the professor to continue the dialog in the future messages. If the student continues to complain, the professor can continue to go back to the initial premise in regard to what steps need to be taken. This is a decisive conclusion and provides clear direction on what the student should do.

example iv

Another difficult situation, as mentioned earlier in the chapter, is where the professor in the course is suspicious that something is going on in the student’s life that is serious or could bring harm to the student or others. Some students ramble in their answers to questions and often reveal some issues that are masked in essays or information thattheyprovide.Thiscancreateamajordifficulty for the faculty member since the course may not have anything to do with mental health issues. All

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

the student’s responses are incidental and directly or indirectly related to the course. However, the professor may believe there is something that is causing some serious problems for the student. Should the professor act on these thoughts that there is something wrong?

There are policies in existence in some institutions that address referral of students who are suspected of having serious issues. However, because time may be of the essence, the faculty has a unique opportunity to address the student’s covert message or sometimes-blatant message. The author would recommend addressing it to the best of our ability as quickly as possible.

The following example is communication using the GMRC method to deal with a student’s perceived problem.

“Mr.______,

Hope this e-mail finds you doing well and having a good week! I have been reading the reports you have been sending and wanted to share with you a couple of observations. First, you seem to relate to the problem “Bill” has in our reading. You provided a lot of information about your current life as relates to “Bill.” Second, you have made some of these observations and comments on several occasions when you have responded. In looking at these two things, I wanted to offer my help or direction in finding an answer for these concerns you have expressed. I am willing to make some contacts or talk to you to be able to help with these. By the way, I did want you to remember that there are some online resources from our campus that we talked about in the first class that can also help you. At any rate, I wanted to let you know that even though I am your professor this semester that I am also concerned about your well being outside of the class. Let me know how I can help.”

Thiscommunicationwouldbedifficultforthe faculty member to write since it is engulfed in legal issues. The professor did not want to ignore

the problem and continue reading the material the student sent. Yet, the professor did need to be careful not to indict or obligate the student. The

“greeting”inthecommunicationwasfriendlyand noncommittal. It at least gave the opportunity to set a pleasant tone for the “message” which was to be difficult at the least.

The “message” part of the model was written in more of a clinical manner. The professor was making an attempt to demonstrate what the student had been doing in a nonjudgmental manner. Although we could continue to write and rewrite the “message” portion of the e-mail, this was at least an attempt to contact the student.

The “reminder” section of the e-mail simply made mention of previous resources that online students have. It was a fairly weak “reminder”; however, it was still in line with the model. In addition, it was certainly positive information for a negative situation.

It is clear that the “conclusion” reaffirms the issue and places the professor ready to assist the student. Although the conclusion is a risk, it is also a strong affirmation of what lengths a professor may travel to assist students electronically.

conclusion

The GMRC is a model that is practical and an experienced-based modelthat attempts to provide the personal feelings and touch within a technical and impersonal environment. It can be utilized in virtually all e-mail situations. This may include the class and individual students. Each element of the GMRC may be larger or smaller depending on the information that is being conveyed. The examples provided are simply ways to adapt the model to situations that may arise as a faculty member negotiates communication with the distance learner. The author has found there has been a positive reception to the model; however, it needs to be empirically tested among a larger audience at several universities. Perhaps through

Achieving a Working Balance Between Technology and Personal Contact within a Classroom

suchresearchfutureeducatorswillbeabletomore completely address the gulf between technical delivery and personal relationships.

futuRe ReseaRch diRections

There remain several areas that future research may be directed. Initially, the first area revolves around the time that the professor must spend in answering e-mails using the model. Will the professors consistently utilize the model in their expanded correspondence during peak semester times? Perhaps even more difficult to consider is the overall positive or negative effect on student retention within a university setting. Will the GMRC be proven to positively impact on retention? We know that the weaker students will have difficulty in distance learning options as they do in the traditional learning environment. Can the GMRC provide the critical support difference needed to help these weaker students remain engaged? Finally, does the GMRC work as well for various ages, different ethnic groups, and genders? This study would assist in transforming the GMRC in the event that a significant difference is identified in regard to the various group responses to the GMRC. In retrospect, the area is replete with options for future research.

RefeRences

Alden, J. (1998). A trainer’s guide to Web-based instruction. Alexandra, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Bowles, M. S. (2004). Relearning to e-learn. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Melbourne University Press.

Bower, B. L., & Hardy, K. P. (2004). From correspondence to cyberspace: Changes and challenges in distance education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 128, 5-12.

Brewer, E. W., Dejonge, J. O., & Stout, V. J. (2001). Moving to online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Cole, R. (Ed.). (2000). Issues in Web-based pedagogy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Duran, R., Kelly, L., & Keaten, J. (2005). College faculty and use and perceptions of electric mail to communicate with students. Communication Quarterly, 53, 159-176.

Finch, C., Keaten, J., & Kelly, L. (2004). Reticent and non-reticent college students’ preferred communication channels for interacting with faculty. Communication Research Reports, 21(2), 197-209.

Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2006). E-learning the key concepts. New York: Routledge.

Payne, D. A. (2005). Succeeding in graduate school online: Tips from successful students.

College Student Journal, 39(1), 117-28.

Polson, C. J. (2003). Adult graduate students challenge institutions to change. New Directions for Student Sevices, 102, 59-68.

Shih, T., & Hung, J. C. (Ed.). (2007). Future directions in distance learning and communication technologies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Singh, P. (2004). Online education: Lessons for administrators and instructors. College Student Journal, 38(2), 302-308.

Wagner, L. (2001). Virtual advising: Delivering student services. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(3). Retrieved February14,2008,fromwww.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ ojdla/fall43/wagner43.html

Williams, K. C. (2006). Active learning and quality in online courses. NACTA Journal. Retrieved

February14,2008,fromhttp://findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_qa4062/is_200612/ai_n17194101