Introduction
Typically the professor's responsibility is to design, develop, research, and teach courses. However, in computer-mediated communication (CMC) learning environments, the focus tends to change. In courses offered via CMC, the role of the professor tends to shift from that of the sole dispenser of information to that of a facilitator and resource for learning activities (Gunawardena, 1992). Researchers acknowledge that while teaching a computer conferencing course, "the teacher must adopt the role of facilitator not content provider" (Romiszowski & Mason, 1996, p. 447). The CMC environment is of a constructivist nature in which collaborative learning and peer-directed activities occur. Constructivism is the paradigm or world view that recognizes learning as the process of constructing meaning about, or making sense of, our experiences (Candy, 1991).

In such environments, the instructor develops and provides the overall structure and the parameters for the course. Then the students build their own learning environment within the framework of the course. In computer conferencing environments, "course design becomes more important, and preparation entails the structuring of conferences and topics, and the design of activities and small group work" (Romiszowski & Mason, 1996, p. 447). In learner-centered environments, students construct their learning through collaboration and interaction. This environment permits students to create their particular learning methods, ones that address individual needs. The instructor role is critical in such a learning environment. "In addition to giving prompt feedback, providing advance planning and clear structure, and planning for hardware and software training, the instructor must play a variety of roles including those of facilitator, coach, guide, expert resource, and arbitrator" (Murphy, Drabier, & Epps, 1998, p. 256).

Several graduate courses in educational technology and distance education at a large research university in Texas have used CMC as either the primary or a supplementary form of communication. These courses have utilized the students' own work as the foundation in both current courses and future courses so that the products the students develop in one course then become a source for subsequent students to use in their courses. In all cases, the instructor stepped aside from being the "sage on the stage" to foster a constructivist climate in which the students were responsible for their own learning and for teaching others. The instructor established the outline and parameters for learning with syllabi that included active and collaborative learning activities. Such learner-centered activities paved the way for the formation of mentor-mentee relationships and communities of learners.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how graduate students help teach their own courses while helping to design subsequent courses. The first part is a description of one graduate course in which this process occurred, and the CMC tools that the students used and investigated in that course. The next section summarizes the types of learning activities required in several graduate courses, examples of applications of those activities, and the amount of time allocated to each application. The third section addresses the advantages and disadvantages of students as designers and teachers of their courses according to four instructional design considerations for CMC: collaboration, relevance, learner control, and technological preparation. The final section is a discussion of the lessons learned and implications for future practice.

Course Description
The instructor received a small grant from the university to accomplish the following steps in a graduate telecommunications class: a) convert existing course content to well designed Web-based instruction; b) locate, field test, and implement optimal CMC tools; and c) develop, field test, and publish (on the Web) training guides for using the CMC tools. Each student in the class was responsible for investigating one of these tools: a threaded web board discussion; a chat room; a shared workspace, and a MOO. Specifically, each student was responsible for developing a training program on a CMC tool. The students each had a three-week block to practice using the tool, develop a training module and guidelines for using the tool, train others in a hands-on workshop, facilitate an instructional application of the tool, and describe the management and administration of that tool. The students in that class met either face-to-face or by two-way interactive videoconferencing on a weekly basis over the semester, and they communicated with each other and with the instructor by FirstClass computer conferencing.

CMC Tools Used
The following CMC tools were used for communication in several graduate courses:

• Basic Support for Cooperative Work (BSCW), a shared work space on the Web--enables students to write and edit collaborative documents as well as share graphics with others and can be password protected;
• World Wide Web Board (WWWBoard), a web board--allows students to engage in asynchronous (not real time) discussions that are threaded and thus easily organized and can be password protected;
• Easy Web Group Interaction Enabler (EWGIE), a chat room on the Web--allows students to engage in synchronous (real time) chats with others and to use its whiteboard capabilities and can be password protected;
• Multi-User Domain, Object Oriented environment (MOO), a type of MUD on the Web--provides students with the opportunity to engage in synchronous (real time) Java-based chats with others in both private and more public environments and can be password protected;
• FirstClassTM (FC), computer conferencing software on an Internet server--provides both synchronous and asynchronous communication and can be password protected.

• Develop and Use a Training Program: Training on Internet tools was one task that students completed in two-person teams--a trainer and a trainee. The trainer first developed a training program for a specific tool, such as CU-SeeMe, and then delivered the training to the trainee via FirstClass as a pilot test. The trainee was responsible for giving feedback to the trainer regarding accuracy and clarity. After the trainer made the necessary revisions and the trainee approved them, the student Webmaster published the training programs on the Web for other students to access and use. In the final step of this process, the trainer and trainee individually recorded their reflections about the experience.

• Have Online Discussions: During the semester students read assigned readings and met online in asynchronous conferences in FirstClass or on a Web board to discuss the readings, ask questions of each other, and share opinions and ideas. Participants in these discussions often included the instructor and graduate assistants, and student moderators took turns moderating the discussions. The students received credit separately for participating in and moderating the weekly discussions.

• Do Collaborative Writing Projects: Small groups of three or four students each were composed of researchers and editors for the purpose of creating four chapters of an online reader about telecommunications. For each unit lasting three weeks, a different group each time adopted the role of editor for one of the chapters and researcher for the other three chapters. The four topics were: Learning via Telecommunications, Teaching via Telecommunications, Managing via Telecommunications, and Evaluation via Telecommunications. The researchers first read and summarized information for the current chapter and submitted their research to the editors via FirstClass. The editors incorporated and synthesized information from the researchers, edited the document, and then presented a draft for review to the researchers. Researchers then reviewed the draft and offered suggestions. The editors incorporated these suggestions into the final draft. The student Webmaster published the editors' final chapters on the Web.

• Develop Instruments, Forms, and Guidelines: A class using FirstClass for communication developed the Web Page Evaluation instrument collaboratively as they investigated a variety of web tools to be used for communication and collaboration in a subsequent Web course. They then used the instrument to evaluate each other's web pages. During the semester, the webmaster posted the instrument to the Web. In subsequent courses, the students used the Web Page Evaluation to evaluate online sites relating to their areas of interest, and at the end of the semester each student evaluated a classmate's web page.

• Engage in Project-Based Learning: In another course, students formed teams of four or five each to create and develop telecommunications-based case studies guided by the seven factors of "Quality Distance Education" (QDE) (University of Wisconsin-Extension, 1996). Each team was comprised of students from TAMU and from a similar class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Oftentimes, students scheduled weekly online discussions with group members to collaborate on the project. Each group developed its own evaluation criteria, which the other groups used to evaluate its products.

Table 1: Types of activities, applications, and time allocations

TYPES OF ACTIVITIES	APPLICATIONS OF ACTIVITIES	TIME ALLOCATION
Develop and use a training program	Distance education training program  Web tools  Cultural Connections	7 weeks  3 weeks  1 semester
Have on-line discussions	Student moderated discussions of readings (small & large group)  Student moderated discussions on topics of interest, reaction papers, and projects  Instructor moderated discussions (required & optional)	1 class    1 week    1 semester
Do collaborative writing projects	Write chapters for Online Reader  Write case studies	3 weeks – 1 semester  1 semester
Develop instruments, forms, and guidelines	Web Tool Evaluation Form  Web Page Evaluation  Pre-Course and Post-Course Survey for Classes at a Distance  Guide to FirstClass  QDE-based Evaluation of an Online Site or Course  How Students Learn Through Computer Conferencing  EWGIE Chat guidelines  WWWBoard guidelines  Basic Support for Cooperative Work (BSCW) guidelines  FirstClass software downloading & installation instructions	3 weeks  2 weeks  6 weeks    1 semester  4 weeks    6 weeks    4 weeks  4 weeks  4 weeks    1 week
Do project-based learning	Conduct needs assessment  Develop Web page  Develop telecommunications project  Develop & conduct training program	1 semester  8 weeks  8 weeks  3 - 10 weeks

Advantages and Disadvantages of Students as Designers and Teachers
Preparing courses to be taught successfully on the Internet and via CMC requires advance planning, careful design, and in many cases, a team of experts. Even more care is required to design constructivist learning environments--ones that are authentic, situated, interactive, project-based, and learner-centered. Researchers (e.g., Eastmond & Ziegahn, 1995; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995) have identified several design considerations for CMC courses. In particular, Cifuentes, Murphy, Segur, and Kodali (1997) identified two administrative design considerations (grading system and grouping) and four instructional design considerations (collaboration, relevance, learner control, and technological preparation). This section concentrates specifically on the four instructional design considerations and the advantages and disadvantages associated with students in a CMC environment involved in teaching their own courses while helping design subsequent courses. Table 2 summarizes selected advantages and disadvantages to the students themselves as they design and teach courses via CMC. As Cifuentes et al. explain,

The four instructional design considerations identified by our findings were collaboration, relevance, learner control, and technological preparation. The design concern for including collaboration and relevance is to provide a social learning context in which students can work productively with each other and internalize their own individual learning. Similarly, student motivation can be ensured by allowing some learner control in the design. Finally, adequate technological preparation empowers students to successfully complete the tasks associated with computer conferencing (p. 186).

References
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K. L., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 172-195.

Eastmond, D. V. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Creskill, NJ: Hampton.

Gunawardena, (1992) Gunawardena, C. N. (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 58-71.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Murphy, K. L., Drabier, R., & Epps, M. L. (1998). A constructivist look at interaction and collaboration via computer conferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2/3), 237-261.

Romiszowski, A. J., & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 438-456). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

University of Wisconsin - Extension. (1996). Quality distance education (QDE): Lessons learned. [On-line] Available: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/qde/home.html