Different Degrees of Distance: The Impact of the Technology-based Instructional Environment on Student Learning

Transcription

1 Different Degrees of Distance: The Impact of the Technology-based Instructional Environment on Student Learning Sarah E. Irvine, Teresa L. Hein & Daniel Laughlin School of Education/Department of Physics American University Washington, DC Abstract - Distance (or distributed) learning, via the Internet in particular, is fast becoming one of the most popular ventures of colleges and universities across the globe. Research on delivery modes and their correlation to student achievement outcomes has shown that students learn better via teletraining mode than face-to-face instruction.1,2 One explanation for this phenomenon is that the students must take more responsibility for, and be more active in, the learning process. Different media for distance learning are being explored, from CD-ROMs to web-based classrooms. This study looks at how the media used in one aspect of distance education, on-line discussion, can affect the learning outcomes for students involved in distance learning activities. On-line discussion within any learning environment can provide the opportunity for students to engage in thoughtful, content-based conversations about the topic under study, which may result in deeper understanding and greater learning gains. A content analysis of student discussion in listserv-based (electronicmail) discussion, web-based threaded discussion, and chat discussion using data from two courses will be presented. The courses included in this analysis encompass a general education physics course and an undergraduate/graduate combined educational technology course. The impact of the use of the three discussion formats on student learning outcomes will also be discussed. The Use of Distance Learning in Higher Education Distance Education is instructional delivery that does not constrain the student to be physically present in the same location as the instructor. Historically, Distance Education meant correspondence study. Today, audio, video, and computer technologies are more common delivery modes. The term Distance Learning is often interchanged with Distance Education. However, this is inaccurate since institutions/instructors control educational delivery while the student is responsible for learning. In other words, Distance Learning is the result of Distance Education. Another term that has experienced some recent popularity is Distributed Education. This term may represent the trend to utilize a mix of delivery modes for optimal instruction and learning. 3 Throughout the globe, the use of Distance Education as a means for students to take courses, obtain degrees, and increase knowledge is becoming more and more popular. Tucker estimates that 55% of the United States' 2,215 four-year colleges and universities have courses available off-site. Over 1 million students are now plugged into the virtual college classroom, which compares with 13 million attending brick-and-mortar schools. That number of cyber-students will more than triple by the turn of the century. 4 In the world of distance education, one of the most important elements of a quality is course is that students are able to interact with the instructor and other students as they would in a traditional classroom, 5 and, given the computer-based medium of distance education, this is done through computer-mediation communication. This goal can be met through a variety of methods, using based discussion groups (or Listserv discussion groups), webbased discussion threads, and chat rooms. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages, and may or may not fit with the instructional objectives of the course. In a 1986 study, Hiltz found that the use of electronic discussions not only could offer new educational options, but in some case could be more effective than the traditional classroom. 6 Phillips and Santoro found that computermediated communication could offer students greater coherence, empower students to improve their communication skills, and enable students to engage in problem-solving activities 7. McComb found that computermediated communication can create a unique environment for discussion that avoids many of the conversational limitations posed by face-to-face communication. 8 Computer-mediated Communication Harasim 9 suggests that there are several key differences between computer-mediated conversations and face-to-face discussions. These differences include: place dependence, time dependence, structure of communication, and richness of communication. In the traditional classroom, face-toface discussions must take place during classroom time and within the physical limitations of the classroom. Computermediated communications do require that students have Frontiers in Education Conference 1

2 access to a computer to participate in the discussion (so they might have to use a computer lab or a personal computer), but does not require that students engage in discussion during class time. Most computer-mediation discussion happens in an asynchronous matter, so that a student may log-in and join the conversation when it works for his or her schedule. The structure of communication may vary from one-toone, one-to-many, or many-to-many. In a typical classroom, 40-80% of face-to-face conversation is taken up by the teacher. 10,11 Hiltz found that online communication was less like to be teacher-centered. 12 On-line discussion groups may offer some students a more comfortable environment in which to interact than the traditional large lecture class. In addition, on-line discussion groups may appeal to students with diverse learning styles. The richness of communication in face-to-face communication includes both the words of the speakers, but also the physical gestures, eye focus, and non-verbal language that we all use when speaking in person. Computer-mediation communication is much more limited; all that is seen is what the writer has written. This may be a "cleaner" way to communicate, but the speaker's intentions might be lost without the non-verbal conventions. Types of Computer-mediated Communication The most common type of computer-mediated communication in higher education today is the use of the electronic mail-based discussion group, or Listserv. An electronic mail-based discussion group allows instructors and students to send to one another simply by entering one address in the "TO:" line of an message. Messages sent to the group may be moderated by the instructor of the course, or may be automatically sent to all members of the group. From a technical perspective, the advantage of based discussion is that students are sent the messages directly without having to remember to log-on to the internet and to check out the discussion. A common disadvantage is that when the student loses a note, or accidentally erases a note, then there is no record of what he or she has said. Also, an -based discussion group has the potential to "flood" the inbox of the student with an overwhelming amount of . Web-based discussion, or threaded discussions, work similarly to the idea of Bulletin Board Systems (or BBS). The student posts a message to the bulletin board at a specific web-address, and others respond or reply to the message when they log-in to check the board. The advantage of web-based discussion is that one can see exactly how the discussion or conversation has progressed. As with an discussion group, one can reply to a message at anytime, but it might be difficult to track the specific message that encouraged the student to respond. With threaded discussion, one can "see" exactly how the discussion progresses, with sub-headings of replies and main headings of new threads. A disadvantage is that the student might not remember to log-in and check the messages frequently (although some discussion groups do send out reminders when a new message is posted to the discussion board). Chat-based discussions are synchronous, text-based discussions. All users must be logged in to the same chat session at the same time. The most obvious difference between this form of computer-mediated discussion and the other forms presented here is that all the users are logged on and talking at the same time. This may offer a more "natural" discussion to take place, with real-time interaction taking place. A disadvantage to chat-based discussion is that there is most often no documentation of what was said, and the pace of chat discussion with more than 10 students (where it seems everyone types at once) can be too overwhelming for most individuals. Computer-mediated Discussion in the Classroom For the purposes of this study, all three types of computermediated discussions -- -based, web-based, and chatbased -- were used across two different courses. In the first course, an introductory general-education physics course for non-majors, an based Listserv discussion forum was used. In the second course, two sections of an introductory education technology, both web-based threaded discussion and chat-based discussions were used. Three main research questions guided the study: 1. What type of discussion takes place in each setting? 2. How much discussion takes place in each setting? 3. What is the quality of the discussions in each setting? The physics course, entitled Physics for the Modern World, is a one-semester algebra-based, introductory course for non-science majors at American University. Students elect to enroll in this course to satisfy a portion of the University s Natural Science requirements toward graduation. Two sections of Physics for the Modern World were offered during spring 1998 and taught by Dr. Hein. The spring 1998 sections consisted of a total of 124 students from 25 states and 22 countries. The course is fairly traditional in its content. In terms of instructional delivery, a variety of techniques are employed to attempt to address the diversity of learners enrolled in the class. Frontiers in Education Conference 2

3 The computer course, entitled Uses of Technology in Education, utilizes hands-on instruction for the integration of computer-based technology in education settings. The course is taught in a computer lab at American University. Two sections were offered during the spring of 1998 taught by Dr. Irvine, in which a total of 42 undergraduate and graduate students were enrolled. Although the course is listed as a requirement for education majors, approximately 15% of the students enrolled in the course were noneducation majors. In the physics course, students participated in a voluntary Listserv discussion forum. The instructor mediated the discussion, previewing each posting before it was sent out to the list. Sixty-two students (with a near perfect gender balance) elected to volunteer to participate in the on-line discussion group. In the computer course, students participated in a required weekly web-based discussion forum. Students were required to post at least once a week, and each week a student from the course facilitated the discussion. In addition, a total of four chat-based discussions were held during the spring 1998 semester. The Impact of Computer-Mediated Discussion A total of 279 statements were posted during the spring 1998 semester. 108 of those postings occurred in the physics course using the discussion group. 110 postings to the web-based discussion occurred, and 61 statements were made in the chat format. Participation varied among the different types of discussion formats. In the physics course, approximately 15% of the students who volunteered to participate in the discussion actually posted to the list. However, all of the students who volunteered later reported that they did read each of the postings to the list, but did not actively participate in the discussions. In the web-based discussion in the education course, 100% of the students participated, most likely because they were required to post as a component of the course. Approximately 86% of the students in the computer course participated in the four chat-based discussion forums held throughout the spring 1998 semester. Each posting to the discussion forums were cataloged and evaluated at the end of the spring 1998 semester. Postings were then evaluated using content analysis with respect to each of the research questions listed above. Figure one illustrates the type and number of statements made in each type of computer-mediation communication. The first bar in each set represents procedural statements, such as questions about when an assignment is due or where the class might be meeting. The second bar represents content-related statements, those statements directly related to the course content. Figure two illustrates the number of statements or postings by the instructor or by the students in each type of computer-mediation communication. The first bar in each set represents instructor statements while the second bar represents student statements. Figure one: Number of procedural or content related statements in each discussion format Procedural v Content-related "Talk" Web Chat Type of CMC Instructor and Student Talk Web Chat Type of CMC Content Procedural Student Instructor Figure two: Instructor and student talk in each type of computer-mediation communication In the and web-based discussion formats, students were more likely to post statements that were at least four sentences in length. In the chat-based discussion, most statements posted were about one sentence in length. In addition, in the and web-based discussions, students were more likely to provide quotes from the textbook, cite example problems, or provide links to other resources. In the chat-based discussions, students were less likely to post this type of connection to outside readings or the textbook. Furthermore, in the and web-based discussion formats, students were more likely to make direct reference to another student's statements or comments. In a follow up survey conducted at the end of the semester to assess the effectiveness of the discussions in Frontiers in Education Conference 3

4 terms of their understanding and perceptions of the course content, students were asked what they found most valuable about the discussion forums. Some sample responses (from both classes) were: I became aware of different points of views. In addition, sometimes I didn t have any idea on the subject so discussions were a good start for me! I got a chance to hear many different perspectives on important issues. It provided the chance to do research on the web and share others perspectives. I enjoyed reading people s responses because it helped me to understand the concepts and the questions in the homework. I was able to see aspects of a concept I might not have thought about when answering a question. That people are interested in the class and therefore interested in giving their opinions about the topics discussed. I found that others have the same questions as I. I found that looking at other responses helped me to answer the question I had because there were often more than one answer or way to solve the problem. On the survey in the physics course, 85% of the students who voluntarily participated in the discussion indicated that the topics discussed changed or influenced their opinions, and 100% indicated that their knowledge of the content improved. In the educational technology course, 72% of the students indicated that they would use a discussion group in their own teaching, for such reasons as: To get my students to actively research a specific issue or topic. To allow students to express their ideas without worry of immediate backlash. To help them learn how to use ! Overall, the results of these surveys suggest that students found the on-line discussion beneficial and useful to them. Many students felt that the on-line discussion format should be continued in future classes. However, the majority of students in the physics course responding felt that participation in the discussion should remain voluntary. The most common rationale supporting voluntary participation was that students felt there was already sufficient activities (i.e. homework, labs, folders, etc.) required in the course. Other students simply felt that students should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to participate in the discussions. In addition, students felt that there were benefits to active as well as passive participation on the list. Matching Computer-mediated Discussion with Learning Goals The findings presented in this paper indicate that computermediated discussions can be a valuable component to any traditional course. Students were able to actively participate in an activity that allowed them to extend the ideas of the course outside the traditional confines of the classroom. In particular for these two courses, they were able to think more deeply about the information presented in class in a different format. The focus of both the physics course and the educational technology course is generally on the technical components of "doing physics" or "using computers" and the use of computer-mediated communication allowed students to discuss the implications of content as it relates to real-world applications. Requiring students to participate in class discussion, be it in person or on-line, can be a formidable task. Most faculty hope that students will participate in class discussions simply because they are interested in the course content, and external reinforcement (such as giving points for attendance) can interfere with students internal motivation for participating in class. However, using a rubric can serve as a guide to help students structure their comments, and often can help facilitate discussions that are grounded in research and practice. In the online environment, students have a greater amount of time to prepare their comments, and using a rubric can assist them in preparing and reflecting on what they are going to say. Conclusions Web-based and Listserv discussion seem to generate much more thought and deeper consideration than either face-toface or chat. During the early phase of chat, a lot of time is used up on procedure. In the first chat session of the semester, it can take more than an hour for students to stop focusing on the medium. In a two hour class period, only in the last 45 minutes is there any real discussion. In chat, much as in face-to-face discussions, students did not give much consideration to the views of others. They simply used them as cues to propound their own beliefs. There was more talking, but we did not notice more listening. A much larger portion of the class did participate during chat. Even those who never speak in class could eventually be prodded into participating. Participation has been at 100% in web-based discussion. It was fairly close to that during chat. In face-to-face discussion in class, it can be more often in the 50-60% range. The ability to send private message during the chat discussion can prompt shy Frontiers in Education Conference 4

5 students into participating. One would not have had the same opportunity for private, personal contact in a classroom. In all but face-to-face, the instructor loses most of their ability to guide the discussion. The chance to ask further probing questions diminishes. Technology, such as on-line discussions, must be carefully evaluated before being implemented into any curriculum. As with other types of technologies, from video simulations to computer-based tutorials, the instructor must be comfortable with not only the medium, but also the message sent through the medium to the students. In an online discussion format, the instructor must carefully monitor students statements about concepts and redirect them as necessary. Monitoring the discussions requires time and commitment on the part of the instructor, as well as a desire to assist the student to come to a deeper understanding of the concept itself. It is our opinion that this is time well spent. As seen with the discussion of weightlessness in the physics example above, the instructor s role is often to not only provide the opportunity for in-depth investigation into a topic, but also to provide constructive feedback as it develops. In this way, the instructor can better integrate electronic discussions to help students come to a deeper and broader understanding of concepts from physics to equity in education. 8 McComb, M Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43, Harasim, L. (1990) Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education; Prespectives on a new environment (pp ). New York: Praeger. 10 Dunkin, M. and Biddle, B The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston. 11 Krupnick, C. G. 1985, Women and men in the classroom: Inequality and its remedies. On Teaching and Learning: The Journal of the Harvard-Danforth Center, 1, Hiltz, S. R The virtual classroom: Using computer mediated communication for university teaching, Journal of Communication, 36 (2), Referemces 1 Chute, A., L. Balthazar, and C. Poston "Learning from Teletraining." In Readings in Distance Learning and Instruction, ed. Michael Moore. University Park: Pennsylvania State University 2 Task Force on Distance Education, "Report of the Task Force on Distance Education," The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, November. Published electronically in DEOSNEWS 3:7 and 3:8 (July 1993, August 1993) 3 Steiner, V What is Distance Education? The WestEd Technology in Education Network. 4 Gubernick, L, and Eberlink, A "I Got My Degree through ". Forbes, June 16, Cybela, J. E Enhancing the educational impact of distance learning experiences at the local level. Distance Education Clearinghouse. 6 Hiltz, S. R The virtual classroom: Using computer mediated communication for university teaching, Journal of Communication, 36 (2), Phillips, G. and Santoro, G. (1997). Teaching group discussion via computer-mediated communication. Communication Education, 38, Frontiers in Education Conference 5