TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEFINITIONS TERMINOLOGY
by Al Rogers with comments by Chris Clark

Below is a letter I sent to a number of educators who were in attendance at the recent Southern California Computer Using Educators' Conference. This letter raises some important considerations regarding the terminology and metaphors connected with using computer mediated telecommunications in the classroom. This meeting turned out to be terribly brief, and barely scratched the surface of the
topic. However, there was considerable consensus that this is a topic in great need of discussion.

Therefore, I am posting this information in the hopes of stimulating some relevant discussion here, and to try and develop a compendium of creative definitions and metaphors.

Please read the attached documents and add your comments and suggestions. I will collect your contributions, compile them, and report back with the results.

Furthermore, I propose that those of us who attend NECC in Boston in June agree to make this a topic of discussion at one of the Telecom Birds of a Feather sessions which will be taking place there.

I begin with a poem to this technology by David Kern of Los Angeles:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

A Toast
by
David Kern


(Haruumpph)
To this silicon intellectual rummage sale;
ASCII Bazaar
Silent-machine-inhabited-by-a-thousand-friendly-ghosts;
Shrine of the Spinning Data Disk

To this modem Mafia;
1980's American "samizdat";
Free-firing occupational-group synapse;
Pedagogues' electro-political Ouija board;

To this Electron City;
Anglo-Roman cypher-warp;
Cybo-democratic podium;
Land of the Phosphor Thought;

To this carbon-unit techno-social device;
Land-line camarilla;
Late 20th-century tertiary-media barrio;
Broad-area literary palimpsest;

To this High Alter to Hermes;

I give you, Ladies and Gentlemen,
a Toast
to its High Awesomeness

our BBS

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

From Al Rogers
April 14, 1989

Dear Classroom Telecom Using Colleague:

I am writing to you regarding the uses and applications of simple
digital telecommunications networking technologies in education.
Many of us have seen first hand the power that the combination of
computers, modems, and telephone lines have to inspire and motivate
teachers and students as they go about the business of teaching and
learning.

Nevertheless, the phenomenon of instructional networking is undergoing
a serious identity crisis. Up to this time, many of us have
essentially been engaged in experimental research, in more or less
formal ways. We have been trying to answer the question, "Does this
technology really have a place in the classroom of the future?" We
have met with varying degrees of success. Many of us have maintained
our optimism regarding its potential. Yet there are many obstacles
to progress.

* We lack clear definitions and appropriate terminology (Do we
agree on the meanings of the words "networks," "networking," and
"telecommunications;" can we use those words productively outside
our own clique?)

* We lack an appropriate metaphor which succinctly pictures the
power inherent in electronic networking. It's not the
telephone; it's not the U.S. Mail; it's not even EMail. Much
of my time is spent trying to explain what it is that we do.
For instance, I have a hard time explaining to my mother what I
am trying to do with this technology.

* Politics, power, complexities of the technology, expense,
time.... and many more problems, all conspire against acceptance
and implementation of instructional networking technology.

I have included below some definitions and questions for you to
consider. Please record your reactions, suggestions, and comments,
and post them here on this forum. I will compile your responses and
report them back here.

Definitions to Consider:

We need several unique and specific terms to describe what happens
when we use telecommunications in instructional settings. The terms
"network," "networking," "telecommunications," and others have a
variety of meanings depending on the context. For instance, it is
difficult to clearly communicate what we are doing if we use the term
"telecommunications" when we are speaking with someone with a
television or video background or point of view. They will envision
satellites, uplinks and downlinks, interactive video, distance
learning, and other phenomenon we are not involved in. The term
"network" can be applied to people, Corvus or Novell networks, or
television stations.

I believe that the following definitions are hampered with arcane
and/or ambiguous terms which often fail to clearly explain or describe
the definition. I would like to discuss this problem, and these
definitions. Perhaps we can appropriate or coin some terms which are
less "technical," and which more clearly communicate what we are using
and what we are doing. I realize this may not be possible, but I
submit this for discussion anyway. I'll be interested in hearing
your response to this area of concern.

[A. ______________________________] consists of simple, digital
telecommunications technologies, consisting of computers, modems, and
telephone lines, to transmit and receive a variety of data from one
site to another. (Suggestions: electronic telecommunications,
electronic networking, teletext, teledata, teleascii, telenetworking
......)

[B. ______________________________]: the network of people who are
joined together by [A. _______]. (Suggestions: Network, ......)

[C. ______________________________]: what [B. _______] (people) do
when they are using [A. _________]. (Suggestions:
telecommunicating, .......)

[D. ______________________________] the use of [A.______] to transmit
and receive text in synchronous (or real-time) mode. As text is
typed on one terminal, it immediately appears on another terminal.
(Suggestions: synchronous telecommunications, real-time
telenetworking,......)

[E. ______________________________] the use of [A.______] to transmit
and receive text in asynchronous mode. Text typed by one user is
stored on some central location for later retrieval by one or more
persons at some later date. (Suggestions: asynchronous
telecommunications, EMail, real-enough time telenetworking,

[F. ______________________________]: the use of [A.______] to
communicate in a one-to-many or many-to-many modes. (Suggestions:
electronic bulletin boards, teletext conferencing, teletext
partylines, tele partylines)

[G. ______________________________]: the use of [A.______] to link
teachers and students for the purpose of conducting collaborative
learning activities. (Suggestions: Instructional Network
ing, .......

Questions for discussion:

1. Does electronic telecommunications have an important role to play
in the life of teachers and students? If so,
a. What is that role (what are the best applications of this
technology in the life of teachers and their classrooms?)
b. Are the costs of equipment, training, time, and communications
worth the benefits?
c. Is there really a pony underneath all of this manure?

2. How do we best define telecommunications technologies currently in
use in classrooms today?

3. What changes will take place with these technologies in the next
five years? Next ten years?

4. In light of those changes, what should we be doing now? What
should we be planning to do next?

5. What are the major obstacles for wider acceptance and
implementation of this technology?

6. How can we support and assist one another in our efforts to develop
this technology and this industry?

7. How do we inform and persuade decision makers?

8. Can we develop a de-facto California instructional network?

9. Is the reliance on commercial telecommunications services creating
issues of equitable access to a powerful technology which public
agencies (such as school districts and libraries) should seek to
address?

10. Where do we go from here?

Below are some prelimary comments from Chris Clark, telecommunications
editor for The Computing Teacher Magazine and organizer of ICCE SIG-
TEL, which I hope you'll all join.

Date: 29-Apr-89 18:58 PDT
From: Chris Clark
Subj: Your Letter 4/17

Yes, we will be having a Birds of a Feather session for SIG/Tel.
Maybe we could make this the main topic of discussion, or an agenda
for later debate on various electronic fora.

A few weeks back I took on the task of drafting bylaws for SIG/Tel,
and I tried to define what it was that we were going to be doing.
Here's the beginning of the draft:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST DRAFT - Bylaws of the Special Interest Group for
Telecommunication,
International Council for Computers in Education

Article I - NAME
The organization will be known as the Special Interest Group for
Telecommunication, or SIG/Tel, of the International Council for
Computers in Education (ICCE).

Article II - PURPOSE AND FOCUS
Section 1: SIG/Tel will support and promote the use of
telecommunication as a tool for the enhancement of learning and
the delivery of instruction. Specifically, SIG/Tel will:
a. Promote the appropriate use of telecommunication technologies
in learning
b. Initiate and encourage research on instructional
telecommunication
c. Collect and disseminate information on educational
applications of telecommunication
d. Assist in the development of communication links for students
and educators.

Section 2: The main, but not exculsive, medium of interest will be
computer-based communication, alone or combined with television,
radio, telephone, and/or other media.[and so on]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I got a call on Section 2 from one of the people on the committee; it wasn't clear to him what I was trying to get across. Did I mean that we weren't going to be dealing with other media? Wasn't all of that part of telecommunication? My answer was that I wanted the group to be focused on computer communication.

Maybe that little anecdote helps you see why I was thinking on the bus home from school the other day that a great column topic would be "What do we call it? Defining What We Are Doing".

When I talk to computer coordinators about telecommunication, they think I'm using a computer. When I use the same word with AV people, they think I mean television, and others think of satellites, etc. The words "telecommunication", "conference", and "network" are vague and have different meanings in other contexts. Even people who understand the technology confuse the names of different activities - databasing, private mail, public bulletins, live conferencing, and file transfer. Some people lump hard-wired

It is imperative that we get together and come up with some terms we can all buy into and start using in a uniform way.

Here are a few definitions I pulled out of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (c.1970).

1. Communication (n) - 1. the act of transmitting 2. a) a giving or
exchanging of information, signals, or messages by talk,
gestures, writing, etc.
2. Telecommunication (n) - communication by radio, telephone,
telegraph, television, etc.
3. Message (n) - a communication passed or sent between persons by
speech, in writing, by signals, etc.
4. Conference (n) - 1. the act of conversing or consulting on a
serious matter 2. a formal meeting of a number of people
for discussion or consultation.
5. Network (n) - 1. any arrangement or fabric of parallel wires,
threads, etc. ...; netting; mesh 2. a thing resembling this
in some way, specif. ... c) a group, system, etc. of
interconnected or cooperating individuals.

Word roots (Greek and Latin):
communicare - to impart, share, make common
mittere - to send (-mission, message)
conferre - bring together, compare, confer
tele - far off
trans - across
nodus - knot [related to net ]

In response to your "Definitions to Consider" letter, these are the terms that I use and that I teach when I do seminars. They are not perfect or without holes, but I have given the matter some thought over the past couple of years.

A. Computer communication - telecommunication via phone lines using
computers equipped with modems to send and receive
information.
B. Telecommunity - a network of people joined by a telecommunication
technology.
D. Live computer conference - the use of computer communication in
real-time (synchronous) mode, where messages are sent,
received, and answered by a group of persons connected to
a network at the same time.
E. Electronic messaging - the use of computer communication in an
asynchronous mode, where messages are stored by the network
for later retrieval.
F. Bulletin - an electronic message which may be read by many people
(one-to-many). The term "mail" describes a private
message (one-to-one).
G. Computer communication in education.

For fun, I tried to imagine some new words. It turned out not to be as easy as I thought it might. Here are the ideas I came up with:

telescribe (-scription),
telemessaging,
telemit (-mission).

Some of the modifiers that seem to fit some of the time for some of the terms are words like: electronic, computer, computer-based, data, digital.

And some of the similar terms, which you have referred to as "Metaphors" are: Network, Mail, Message, Conference, Bulletin. I have juggled them around in my head and not found any really outstanding new ideas.

Well, this has rambled a bit, but I wanted to get my ideas to you while they were fresh. It's also a break time between semesters for me, so I have the time to think clearly about it. One of the reasons people use different terms is that we have all had different experiences with computer communication. I am anxious to hear your responses to what I've suggested.

This is a partial response to your msg. on the need for standard definitions in educational telecommunications which includes some thoughts on Chris Clark's comments.

What the technology will do may, and probably will, continue to outstrip our ability to "keep up" but defining the actual pedagogical goals of computer mediated communication and learning puts the ball back in our court. After all, it is clear that very near future increases in bandwidth, vocal command parsing (AI), peripheral buss extensions, etc. will soon (withing 5-10 years create a PC which is virtually indistinguishable from a current TV (including "real time" pictures of the people you are talking to .. in their separate windows of course) but which will have enormous "outreach" and personal environmental control potential. I am not indulging in "futurism" here. I have seen demonstrations of (current mind you) telephone and satellite technologies which have sufficient bandwidth to carry astonishing amounts and varieties of information. It reminds me of the second Daniel Olavaw/ to "viewing" each other (machine mediated) that actually "seeing" someone (in the same room as yourself) was a shock (and socially unacceptable to boot).

My point is that we are in an interesting intermediate stage of knowledge evolution which causes problems because the things that we wish to do are still somewhat difficult (arcane) to implement. English is a sufficient analytical language that we could make up almost any terminology we wished it might even enter the lexicon if we can get enough people to agree with it but the words that "stick" are the ones that get "used" ... from that standpoint, I would argue that, for the time being, Communication, instruction, research, workgrouping, etc. is either machine mediated or not ... the actual mechanism (isolated, multiuser, local area network, wide area network workstations) is, in my opinion, not worth mentioning unless it has an immediate impact on the scope of implementation; ie, if your goal was to
enhance cross cultural exchange then a wide area network via phone lines (possibly with a FIDO or CMS front end) would be necessary to gain access to the ECHOs of interest ... otherwise, of what interest is it (unless your goal is to expand technological awareness of course).

Related to this, I would contend, is the fact that the current diversity and complexity inherent in these developing technologies makes them difficult to learn and, certainly, no easier to teach. This is not an argument for abandoning the attempt to do so, (even temporarily) until things "get easier (they are unlikely to get easier for us if we don't rattle some chains), only an argument for the imperative of setting goals and scope (and restricting jargon).

I have difficulty remembering how I got along without my lab LAN, BBS, wordprocessor and terminal software and, I must confess, it has been much easier to entice fellow professionals into the coils of the technological beast when they see what I can DO with these things ... as we all know, there's a certain leap of faith here.