I must admit, I don't have the obvious credibility one might think I
need in order to write paper about the online classroom. I do not
have direct experience as an online teacher or student, but I became interested
in online learning by merging my two primary research interests: communication
education and computer mediated communication (CMC). What I have done,
however, is observe several online courses from beginning to end. I believe
that even though I lack the personal experience, I possess the knowledge
and interest necessary to investigate online learning. By thinking about
the online classroom with an outsiders perspective, I cannot and have not
entered my research with pre-conceived notions about the effectiveness
or ineffectiveness of this method of learning. I have read the literature,
I have observed the interaction and I have surveyed the students, all with
the goal of understanding more fully this educational medium. It is my
hope that my findings will bring to light some issues institutions, instructors,
and students will consider when thinking about the online classroom themselves.
Contrasting the "ideal" (what we hope happens in the online classroom)
with the "real" (what really happens) is necessary if we are to more fully
understand both the advantages and disadvantages to taking and teaching
an online class. Many institutions are either offering online classes
now or thinking about doing so. Regardless of one's opinion of this method
of learning, the online classroom is gaining popularity, especially among
adult learners. Among non-traditional students, especially, there
is an "increasing demand for a flexible learning framework - one that does
not tie the learner down to a specific time or place" (Beller & Or,
1998, p. 1). Actual online classrooms need to be observed, then, so that
students and teachers can be prepared for what may occur in an online context.
The ideal that I will contrast with the real gives us insight and information,
but obviously cannot speak for all online classroom experiences. These
conclusions I draw are based on observations of four similar online courses,
and I make no claim that we can generalize these findings to all computer
mediated learning experiences. But, broadly conceived, these thoughts and
suggestions are important considerations of the online classroom experience.
In order to draw conclusions about the online classroom, the best approach
is to observe the online course in action. From June 1999 through May 2000
I observed four communication courses that were taught completely online.
All four courses were taught by the same instructor. The format
for all interaction for these courses was asynchronous; there was no scheduled
face-to-face component to the course. In order to communicate with
one another, students would post messages and read messages on the class
listserv and discussion board. The students in these courses discussed
course concepts in whole class discussions as well as worked on small group
research projects. In addition to observing the actual messages students
exchanged online, I wanted to find out their perceptions and
feelings about their experiences in the online classroom. I accomplished
this through the use of a brief online survey that almost every student
completed at the end of the course.
My research on this topic is exploratory and descriptive. I did not
test a hypothesis or conduct an experiment. I wanted a firsthand look at
what goes on when students and teachers meet online. The "ideals" I will
discuss are drawn from my review of the online learning literature. The
"realities" I will report here occurred only in the courses I observed,
however, as I have stated before, the conclusions and suggestions are worthy
of consideration by anyone (teachers and students) considering an online
learning experience.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT ONLINE LEARNING?
Much has been studied with regard to online learning. At the most basic
level, descriptions of how CMC is being used in an educational context,
the unique attributes of this medium, and the benefits of such use have
been thoroughly explored. Many scholars who have taught online are quick
to point out the attractiveness of an online education, and the benefits
described are many.
Kaye (1989) describes structural, economical and pedagogical uses of
CMC in education. For example, structurally, the computer can store messages
for easy retrieval, economically, the use of computer mediated courses,
despite the cost of equipment and wiring, may offer enormous savings for
both the student and learning institution, and pedagogically, the computer
enhances cooperative learning. Other researchers have also described how
CMC technologies enhance cooperative learning, or group work. Pychyl,
Clarke and Abarbanel (1999) found that a web environment was very effective
for small group work because, for example, it provided structure for group
members participation and easy access to group member contributions. Additionally,
Dede argues that computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) supports
interactions and the formation of virtual communities, provides opportunities
for mentoring, and prepares students for telecommuting roles in a business
environment.
Harasim (1989) explains how online education is unique. Computer-assisted
instruction is a many-to-many process, it is not dependent on time and
place, it is text based, and the use of the computer encourages active
involvement by all participants, as well as offers a certain amount of
control over the structure of the discussion. All these attributes contribute
to several benefits of integrating CMC in educational contexts. For example,
through her experiences integrating CMC into the classroom, McComb (1994)
found that learning is extended beyond the walls of a traditional classroom
because instructors are more available to students. In addition, there
is a balance of power with the use of CMC; students are expected to be
more responsible and display initiative in accessing the system and contributing
to class discussion online. Finally, McComb found that CMC is efficient.
It provides quick access to needed resources and helps in course record
keeping. Noting another possible benefit of CMC as an educational supplement,
Althaus (1997) reported enhanced learning and higher grades earned by students
participating in computer mediated discussions.
The impact of the instructor in the online course has also been examined.
Ahern, Peck and Laycock (1992) were interested in assessing what style
of teacher discourse contributed to higher levels of student interaction.
In an experimental design, they manipulated three types of instructor discourse:
questions to the group, statements to the group, and conversational style
(i.e. a spontaneous and informal comment or question directed toward an
individual). They found that the conversational style produced the
most complex student interaction patterns. Thus, a teacher centered
formal style is not necessary to produce interaction in a CMC environment.
They conclude, then, that teacher style of discourse is the most important
factor in determining student participation and quality of responses.
From these few investigations, the consensus is that CMC successfully
impacts student education, and can be an ideal way for teachers to teach
and for students to learn. What these and other studies have also
illustrated is that there are several assumed benefits associated with
the online classroom. In other words, the online classroom is ideal because
it enhances cooperative learning, encourages participation and interaction,
and promotes convenience. These assumptions may be true, but along
with these apparent benefits, there are concerns. In the next section,
I will discuss each of these assumptions about the online classroom, providing
examples of what the realities were in the online courses I observed.
THE "IDEAL" VS. THE "REAL"
"Ideally, the online classroom enhances cooperative learning."
There are several assumed benefits of working in groups and discussing
course concepts online. Students of the online classroom do not have
to set up meeting times and travel great distances in order to work on
a classroom project. In the online classroom, no one can make up excuses
for not attending a group meeting or class discussion, because there are
no pre-determined meeting times in computer mediated asynchronous discussion.
Students interact by posting messages to a discussion board and can do
so at their own convenience. Because of this, all students can participate
and contribute equally to the project or discussion.
It might then, appear that working in a group online is easier than
working in a group on-ground (face-to-face). The groups I observed
all indicated that they appreciated the convenience of online group work.
Not traveling to and from a meeting is convenient, but not always advantageous.
Many of the students commented on how hard it was to keep up with and read
all the discussion. Students were getting frustrated by the delayed responses
associated with asynchronous online interaction. In addition, students
felt the communications lacked a personal quality; not meeting face-to-face
and not meeting in real-time seemed to impact they way in which they related
to one another. Because of this feeling, many of the groups actually
ended up talking on the phone, using real-time chat, or meeting in person
to work on the project.
Students also spent a lot of time discussing how they were going to
interact. Instead of using the discussion board to discuss their
projects, they were using it to talk about how, when and where they were
going to meet as a group. Students who are inexperienced in online
group work may feel as though the only way to be a group is to physically
meet. For some groups, this assumption caused some problems.
For example, one group spent so much time discussing possible meeting times
and locations, they were surprised when they finally realized they only
had two days before their project proposal was due. So while CMC
can enhance group work, it can only happen if students actually want to
work as a group in an asynchronous, computer-mediated manner.
Students associate classroom groups with physically meeting, so in these
online courses, there was a strong desire to meet face-to-face.
In addition, because not everyone is online at the same time, certain
aspects of the group project may in fact take longer to complete than in
a face-to-face context. For example, it took several of the groups
I observed well over a week to decide the focus of their project. I imagine
the same decision could have been made much quicker in one face-to-face
meeting. Walther (1992) predicts that sufficient time and message
exchange must occur in order for relationships to develop in CMC. The same
argument could also be made for group decision making. Because of
the time delay in exchanging messages, students need more time to make
decisions and reach consensus.
Overall, while the students liked liked the convenience of meeting online,
they were frustrated at times by the process itself and the lack of personal
interaction. Most of the groups attempted to arrange face-to-face
meetings, and some students even reported feeling better about the project
and about their group members after having met. For most of these
students, this was their first online class, so they may have been unclear
how to go about working as a group in a virtual environment. For
this reason, I believe they resorted to more comfortable means of interaction.
In order to make the class itself and the groups specifically feel "real,"
the students needed to see one another in a face-to-face setting.
"Ideally, the online classroom encourages participation and interaction."
Because of the anonymity of online interaction, people who may not speak
up in a face-to-face setting will be more confident about doing so in an
online environment. In addition, asynchronous interaction allows
one to contribute at his or her own convenience, thus no one is fighting
for "floor time" in order to get a word in. The textual nature of the communication
is also advantageous in some respects because it allows students to really
think about their contributions and craft a well written statement.
In the classes I observed, all students could contribute to the weekly
class discussion by posting their response to the discussion question within
a one week period. The discussion, then, is not constrained by a
short time limit (i.e. an hour long class), and students can post at their
convenience. All of these features of asynchronous communication
are important, especially for the shy student. Finally, if participation
is a graded requirement of the course, online interaction provides a structured
way for the instructor to monitor the amount of messages students post.
What makes such a context positive for participation and interaction,
however, also has some drawbacks. Because there is no limit (usually)
placed on the length or amounts of messages students can post, there may
be large amounts of text for students to write and to read. Many
of the messages posted to the discussion boards were very long and detailed.
Also, if a student comes late to the discussion (later in the week), he
or she may not read all the posts that came before. Likewise, if
a student posts early (early in the week) he or she may not return to read
the other messages. Students in the courses I observed commented
that they spent a lot of time reading and responding to posts; however,
some commented that they did not read all the discussion and only posted
their required contribution. Accordingly, some later posts never got responded
to at all. Overall, many students were surprised that the online
course was more time consuming (due to reading numerous posted messages)
than a traditional class.
The numerous posts also require a large time commitment from the instructor,
even moreso if he or she actively participates in the discussion.
This brings up another concern, and that is determining the quality of
the participation. Giving students guidelines, such as "post two
messages per week", may help in grading the participation, but the instructor
must go further. In the classes I observed, the instructor specifically
articulated the quantity and quality requirements for posting. A
few students, however, requested clarification regarding posting requirements
as they were still unsure of of what constituted a "substantive" or quality
post.
Finally, while online discussion can promote extensive interaction because
everyone can participate, an online asynchronous discussion is much different
than a face-to-face one. To meet established posting requirements,
the possibility exists that students may post a message that responds to
the discussion question only and does not interact in any way with other
students. Students need to understand the parameters
of a successful CMC discussion (Colomb & Simutis, 1996). For example,
in listserv discussion, Herring (1996) describes the basic message structure
as containing three elements: a link to an earlier message, an expression
of views, and an appeal to other participants. Without these appropriate
references, messages become no more than "monologues in sequence" (Herring,
1996, p. 92). Students in the courses I observed were taught this,
in the sense that the instructor explained specifically the importance
of commenting on and responding to other's posts. The students did all
get a chance to participate, however they weren't always engaged in interaction
as described above..
"Ideally, the online classroom promotes convenience." Broadly
conceived, this is an accurate statement. As I have already indicated above,
the students I observed commented frequently on how convenient it was to
complete a course online. Students appreciated the ability to participate
in class discussion at their convenience and the notion of submitting their
papers electronically. More than one student praised the benefits
of not having to fight traffic and parking! Students appreciated
not having to attend mandatory group meetings; however many of the same
students who liked the convenience still wanted to meet face-to-face with
their group members.
While online learning may be convenient because it saves time in some
respects (e.g. not having to travel to school), the process of participating
in an online course can be more time consuming than one might think.
It can actually take more time to complete all aspects of an online course
than a face-to-face course. It takes longer to write a comment than
to speak it, and the process of "online listening" (i.e. reading and responding
to what others have contributed to the discussion boards) is a time consuming
endeavor. It is possible that if students log on only once or twice
a week (the equivalent of meeting in a face-to-face class) they may be
overwhelmed with the amount of messages waiting for them. In the
classes I observed, the instructor strongly urged students to log on two
or three times a day in order to keep up with the whole class and small
group discussions. Some students, however, were absent from group
discussions for several days. The instructor also may find him or
herself spending more time attending to the needs of an online course.
Posting online lectures, participating in class discussions and communicating
frequently with students can take up a significant portion of time.
In addition, convenience itself may not make for the best overall classroom
experience. In the survey, several students indicated they liked the convenience,
but disliked the process of communicating in a delayed, impersonal manner.
One student wrote that "it was a good chance to get more units without
attending class. I would do it again for the same reason, but not because
I enjoyed the experience." Even though convenience is a positive
attribute about the online classroom, it may not be enough to provide for
the social and educational needs of students.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
So, what does all this mean for the teacher and student of the online
classroom? Is this educational context the ideal way to learn?
The answer may not be so clear-cut. Like many things in education,
the answer may be "it depends."
To make the online classroom successful, I suggest several things.
First, instructors should participate in any online discussion, either
directly or at the very least by providing summaries. In this way,
the instructor can highlight examples of insightful online discussion by
the students, and help to facilitate quality online interaction.
Second, instructors need to consider their students' knowledge of
the technology and knowledge of online interaction in general. It
may be necessary to teach online interaction skills, at a basic level,
before the start of any online course. Ellsworth (1995) suggests
a three-tier developmental learning process in order to ensure successful
implementation of computer-mediated interaction. First, students
must see the connection between content and method; second, students must
have introductory hands-on learning of hardware and software; and third,
students must be allowed the time to gain proficiency of such tools so
that they become second nature. The instructor of the courses I observed
provided detailed information about online collaboration and interaction
and online "netiquette", which was an important addition to the content
of her class since many of the students had never before taken an online
course.
Taking into consideration the realities of the groups I observed, there
are several things that instructors and students can do to make the process
more ideal. First, students should be given as much time as possible
to plan and discuss their group projects. Even if the project is
not due until the end of the semester, groups can be formed early on.
Second, instructors can provide the groups with access to listservs, discussion
boards, and real-time chat so that they have many different choices of
interaction. Because some students take an online course so they
don't have to meet face-to-face, in-person meetings should not be required
unless students are aware of this requirement before the course starts.
If all students are agreeable, some face-to-face meetings could actually
enhance the online experience. Third, groups should be small (3-4
students) and structured. The groups I observed all had assigned
leaders and this helped them get off to a good start. Finally, students
need to be conscientious about logging on daily to prevent the group interaction
from lagging. Again, instructors can assist students by making sure
they are aware of their responsibilities as a group.
There are many other aspects that need to be considered, but I obviously
cannot cover them all in this short paper. For example, the type
of student, course content and method of interaction will all impact the
processes that occur in the online classroom. The concerns I have
discussed here, however, need to be considered for all online courses with
any type of student. The online classroom poses challenges to both
student and instructor. While students need to learn technologies and become
skilled in online discourse, instructors have a responsibility as well.
Implementing an online course, or any CMC component to a regular face-to-face
course should not be done hastily, but rather a solid rationale for its
use is necessary if student learning outcomes are to be reached. This informal
observation I have done ultimately raises more questions than it answers.
While there are perhaps many advantages to implementing online classes,
instructors and students alike need to recognize what is the best use of
this technology in order to achieve the most benefits.
REFERENCES
Ahern, T. C., Peck, K., & Laycock, M. (1992).
The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediated discussion. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 8, 291-309.
Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication
in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussion. Communication
Education, 46, 158-176.
Beller, M. & Or, E. (1998). The crossroads between
lifelong learning and information technology: A challenge facing leading
universities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2),
Online, Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue2/beller.html.
Colomb, G. G., & Simutis, J. A. (1996). Visible
conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom.
In S. Herring (Ed.) Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social
and cross cultural perspectives. (pp. 203-222). Amsterdam: John Benjamin
Publishing.
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education:
Emerging technologies and distributed learning. The American Journal
of Distance Education, 10, 4-36.
Ellsworth, J. H. (1995). Using computer-mediated
communication in teaching university courses. In Z.L. Berge and M.P.
Collins (Eds.) Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom:
Volume 1: Overview and perspectives (p. 29-36). Cresskll, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Harasim, L. (1989). On-line education: A new domain.
In R. Mason and A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers
and distance education (pp. 50-62). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Herring, S. (1996). Two variants of an electronic
message schema. In S. Herring (Ed.) Computer-mediated communication:
Linguistic, social and cross cultural perspectives. (pp. 81-108). Amsterdam:
John Benjamin Publishing.
Kaye, A. (1989). Computer-mediated communication
and distance education. In R. Mason and A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication,
computers and distance education (pp. 3-21). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated
communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43, 159-170
Pychyl, T. A., Clarke, D. & Abarbanel, T. (1999).
Computer-mediated group projects: Facilitating collaborative learning with
the world wide web. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 138-141.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated
interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19,
52-90.