Understanding Participation in Online Courses:
A Case Study of Perceptions of Online Interaction
Noppadol Prammanee
Department of Educational Technology, Research and Assessment
College of Education
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL, USA
nprammanee@yahoo.com
March, 2003
Abstract
This study examined instructor and learner perceptions and attitudes toward
interaction in online courses on “engaged learning with technology (EWT)”
delivered to K12 inservice teachers. Participants included learners who
were enrolled in EWT and a course instructor. Moreover, the participant
included instructors who have expressed reluctance to teach online courses,
participants who chose not to enroll in online courses, and withdrew early
after the first session of an online course. Qualitative and quantitative
methods were used to analyze the interviews, documents, and online transcripts.
Henri’s (1992) content analysis, five-step model was used to measure the online
transcripts. The result of the study showed that most learners have a high
level of satisfaction with the course content, which covers the use of
technology and its integration into classroom teaching and learning. Analysis
of data revealed that although perceptions regarding interaction varied among
all interviewed, upon reflection all course participants agreed that the
interactivity was at least adequate in learning. Recommendations for
assisting the educators in developing and delivering online courses effectively
and efficiently will be offered.
Introduction
The field of distance education (DE) is rapidly changing with the growth of
technology such as two-way interactive video (TIV), interactive television
(ITV), desktop conferencing, instructional computing, the Internet and World
Wide Web (the Web or WWW). Online/Web-based instruction is a subset of
DE, which provides opportunities to learn anywhere and anytime for learners
with access to computers and the Internet. Currently, online instruction
using both synchronous and asynchronous tools has become an alternative to the
traditional classroom environment because these tools offer the promise of
flexibility and individualization and can reach several kinds of
learners. For example, it will be able to reach commuter students,
full-time working students, students having families, students with
disabilities, and those who change residences. Therefore, many institutions of
higher education are increasing the courses or degree programs that are offered
entirely online (Hanna, 1998; Hara & Kling, 1999; Heeter, 1999; Khan, 1997;
National Center for Education Statistics, 1998, 1999; Office of Higher
Education, 2001).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is two-fold. The first purpose is to gain a deeper
understanding of the perceptions shared by learners who dropped out and who
chose not to enroll in online courses and faculty who have expressed reluctance
to teach online. The second purpose is to explore instructor’s and learners’
attitudes and perceptions of interaction after they have experienced an online
course “Engaging with Technology” (EWT). The findings from the study are
intended to lead to deeper understanding of online instruction and to
facilitate success in creating, teaching, and learning in online learning
environments.
Web-Based Instruction
Kahn (1997) defines Web-based instruction (WBI) as: “a hypermedia-based
instructional program which utilizes the attributes and resources of the World
Wide Web to create meaningful learning environment where learning is fostered
and supported” (p. 6). WBI is a new tool to support instruction and
learning which uses the Web as a medium to carry instruction to the distant
learners. The Web is not only carries the media, but it also creates
“global village” which allows people around the world to exchange information
communication (Crossman 1997). According to Ritchi and Hoffman (1997),
“instruction can be defined as a purposeful interaction to increase learners’
knowledge or skills in specific, pre-determined ways” (p. 135). A “Medium
(plural, media) is the channel of communication…refers to anything that carries
information between a source and receiver” (Heinich et al, 1999, p. 8).
Mathew and Dohery-Poirier (2000) address five uses for WBI for instructors:
Computer-mediated Communication
in Education
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is a combination of telecommunication
technologies and computer networks (Berge & Collin, 1995; Ryan, Scott,
Freeman, Patel, 2000) to transmit, store, and receive information by the users
(December, 1996; Jonassen et al, 1995; Lewis, Whitaker, Julian, 1995; Paulsen,
1996) via synchronous (i.e. IRC, MUDs, MOOs) and asynchronous (i.e. e-mail,
electronic bulletin board, newsgroup) communication tools (Ryan et al, 2001).
The CMC frameworks were classified into four interactions: one-alone — this
occurs when individual retrieves information from online resources without
communication with an instructor or fellow learners; one-to-one — is employing
e-mail to assist in teaching and learning; one-to-many — is conducted via
bulletin board or electronic mailing list service (listservs), and many-to-many
— can be conducted via the conferencing (Paulsen, 1995).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer-mediated Communication (CMC)
Computer-mediated communication helps instructors put course materials online
anytime at their convenience before class begins. It is also easy for
them to upgrade the course materials in the future. Using CMC, the learners
can communicate directly with instructor without waiting for permission to
talk as is done in the traditional classroom setting. CMC offers “development
of high-level reasoning skills and high-level (deep) thinking” (p. 62).
Perhaps “high-level (deep) thinking” needs more time to think, and CMC offers
that. Thus, using CMC, learner can take time to think “deeply” before
posting messages in a discussion area (Moore 2002). CMC will atomically
save the messages that have been posted in the discussion and chat forum for
the further information (Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 1998; McComb, 1993).
Furthermore, the CMC technology can track the frequency and times each student
logged onto the class (Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 1998, p.2). Also, CMC
provides online course material in assisting learners with study and preparation
before the class begins (McComb, 1993). According to Phillips &
Santoro (as cited in McComb), instructors can contact students in particular
groups with specific questions by using CMC without using class time.
In order to gain full benefits from CMC, the learners must be self-controlled
and self-motivated in accessing the course materials online (McComb, 1993;
Moore, 2002). Instructors should logon into class and give feedback to students
more often (McComb, 1993).
In spite of the many advantages of CMC, it does have some problems.
One might say the electronic communication tools still have limited features;
however, when the technology developed is too advanced, the users lack knowledge
and skills to use it (Aoki, 1995; Hara, Bonk & Angeli). This might
make some instructors and learners spend a lot of time doing coursework-related
activities and learning new technology. One of the biggest problems
is the lack of social cues (Aoki 1995; Kuehn, 1994). When social cues are
absent, the users have to guess what their audience is feeling (Hara, Bonk
& Angeli).
Because the absence of social cues makes the learners face a difficult time
while learning online, many researchers such as Walther (1992, 1993, 1995,
1996) and Sproull and Kiesler (1991) are trying to find the best way to integrate
social context into online classroom learning. In order to solve
this problem, McIsaac (1999) suggests that “socialization can be encouraged”
using “communication strategies specific to the medium,” (“Social Context
of Learning,” para. 1) such as (>-), (>:-<),
and (/\/\/\) [emoticons]
can help the users to communicate through the Internet.
The Role of Interaction
Interaction is one of the most important elements of online instruction because
it is helpful for learners in getting feedback from the instructor about their
performance in course-related activities and also for encouraging learners
to engage in active learning. Many questions are raised regarding interactions,
such as how important do learners perceive the value of interaction in online
learning? Some researchers and educators such as that of King &
Doerfert, (2001) and Smith, (1996) shows that students and faculty perceive
distance education courses to permit less interaction than conventional courses.
Garrison (1990) claims that learners who always interact with their instructor
and classmates are more motivated and have better learning experiences. Fulford
and Zhang’s (1993) study found that “when learners perceive the level of interaction
to be high, they will be more satisfied with instruction than when they perceive
the level of interaction to be low” (p. 8). According to Wagner, (1994)
Interactions are reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two
actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence
one another. An instructional interaction is an event that takes place
between a learner and the learner’s environment. Its purpose is to respond
to the learner in a way intended to change his or her behavior toward an educational
goal. (p. 8)
One of the most influential models that deals with interactions in a DE course
is the one developed by Moore (1989). Moore categorizes interactions
into three types: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner
interactions. Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) added a fourth type of
interaction called “learner-interface interaction,” which occurs when learners
use technologies to communicate about the course content, ideas, and information
with the instructor and their classmates. The four types of interactions
are described below.
Learner-content Interaction
Moore (1989) states that learner-content interaction is the interaction that
occurs “between the learner and the content or subject of study” (p. 2). The
learner’s interaction with the intellectual content can affect “learner’s
understanding, the learner’s perspective, or the cognitive structures of the
learner’s mind” (p. 2). Moore and Kearsley (1996) say that through interaction
with the course content, learners can achieve understanding of the subject.
The interaction allows learners to construct new knowledge by processing incoming
information into previously-stored knowledge structures. Content can be in
a multimedia format, such as paper-based text, audio or videotape, CD and
Internet communication tools.
Learner-instructor Interaction
Learners consider learner-instructor interaction highly desirable and necessary
(Moore 1989). Interactions involve motivation, feedback, and dialog
between the learner and the expert (who prepares the subject material) or
the instructor. After planning a curriculum, the instructor should try
to motivate the students and maintain their interest in the subject matter.
Then the instructor should present the material or have it presented to the
class by one of the students. Next, the instructor should try to evaluate
the students’ comprehension of the subject matter in appropriate ways.
The instructor should then provide feedback about the students’ progress and
also encourage or motivate the students regarding the future activities of
the course. Moore and Kearsley say that effective interaction with the
instructor allows the learner to interact with the content of the course,
the assignments, or the evaluation. Moreover, interaction with the instructor
helps the learner take advantage of a more individualized type of instruction
in which the instructor can respond to each of the different learners in a
particular way. Instructors assist in interacting with the subject matter
of the course, motivating the learner to learn, and organizing the testing
and evaluation of the distance learning program.
Learner-learner Interaction
Moore states that learner-learner interaction deals with the exchange of information,
ideas, and dialog among learners: “between one learner and other learners,
alone or in group settings, with or without the real-time presence of an instructor”(p.
3). The purpose is to share information and ideas for problem solving as a
group. Whenever more than two learners interact, group interaction occurs.
Moore and Kearsley assert that successful interaction depends on considering
the learners’ “age, experience, and level of autonomy” (pp. 131-132).
For example, younger learners learn best when they interact in the same age
level group. However, adults and advanced learners do not need these
prerequisites. Learner-learner interaction occurs in discussion groups,
real-time chat, and listservs (Moore and Kearsley). Interaction among
learners is helpful for pedagogical reasons because learners can assist other
learners with the subject matter. New technology, such as two-way audio/video
computer conferencing and asynchronous and synchronous communication via the
Web allows for stimulating communication among learners.
Learner-interface Interaction
Hillman et al, define learner-interface interaction as the interaction that
takes place between the learner and the technology. To be successful, this
“interaction requires the learner to operate from a paradigm that includes
understanding not only the procedures of working with the interface, but also
the reasons why these procedures obtain results” (p. 34). As distance education
programs use more advanced technologies, the learners’ interaction with those
technologies becomes increasingly important. When learners expect to
use technology to facilitate the learning, the instructor and staff have to
make sure that those technologies will actually help them to learn.
Many researchers have been conducting research on how learners interact with
diverse types of media. In order to participate in online education, learners
need to have basic computer skills, access to the Internet and knowledge of
the Internet software.
All four interactions are necessary for learners to be successful in learning.
The learners need to interact with the content. If they cannot understand
the content, the instructor needs to assist them. Also, the learners
need to interact amongst themselves to discuss and share some ideas about
course content, assignments, projects, etc. Moreover, in online learning
the learners cannot avoid interaction with the interface. Therefore,
if they do not know how to interact with the interface, then the delivery
vehicle will not work for them, and inadequate instruction will occur.
Research Design
Since the interactions are important for learners to receive the benefits from
online learning environments, this study was designed to explore instructor and
learner perceptions and attitudes toward interactions in online courses.
A case study was chosen because it was helpful to develop a “thick description”
(Stake, 1995) of online course documents that can be used to gain a deeper
understanding of learners in online courses.
I chose the EWT course as a boundary for the study site because the instructor
permitted observation of the online class (lurker) and interviews with him and
his students to accomplish the objective of the study.
Since EWT is still new in online courses and uses more advanced technologies
(such as the Internet), it was chosen to be a model for other online
courses. For instance, it will be helpful for institutions to both offer
online courses and plan to offer online courses in terms of developing and
designing courses. Moreover, the recommendation may be useful for
faculty, instructional designers, and the learners. In order to achieve
the purposes of the study, I used both qualitative and quantitative methods criteria
to analyze the sources of data used for this study. The sources consisted
of face-to-face and e-mail interviews, documents review (documents including
course syllabus, participant’s guide, and other relevant materials), and
content analysis (transcripts of the online discussion including both
synchronous and asynchronous discussion).
Background of the Course
In 1998, a “Partnership for Technology Integration” was formed between the
College of Education (COE) at Northern Illinois University [NIU] and the Dukane
Corporation [.]" The mission of the partnership was “To act as
agents of change toward the adoption and educated use of integrated
instructional technologies in K-12 settings and higher education [.]” One
of the principle activities charted to carry out this mission was to develop an
online course to assist inservice teachers in developing engaging and
technology enhanced lessons (Luetkehans & Robinson, 2002, p. 1190).
The Course
The purpose of EWT is to assist teachers to incorporate meaningful technology-related
content in teaching to promote student success. North Central Regional
Education Laboratory (NCREL), (as cited in Luetkehans & Robinson) defines
“Engaged Learning” to be encouragement for “Learning with
Technology.” According to Luetkehans & Robinson (2002),
employing the NCREL materials as a resource for online learning environments
were developed to incorporate individual, small group, and large group
activities as teaching strategies. These strategies included: “Student
HomePages, Private Discussion Areas for Feedback, WebQuest, Synchronous Role
Play and Discussion Activities, Streaming Video and Print Case Studies,
Existing Web-based Tutorials, and Threaded Discussion Brainstroming and
Debriefing Activities” (p. 1190).
EWT is a 3 credit-hour graduate online course that aimed to provide in-service
teachers with opportunities to explore, experience, and build skills in engaged
learning with technology. Concepts were based on NCREL course entitled
“Learning with Technology.” The focus was on integrating tools rather than how
to use the tools (NCREL as cited in Clemens, 2002). EWT was developed
during the spring of 2000 by four graduate students, including myself, for a
class (Compute-Mediated Communication) project. Initially, the course was
offered primarily through the Blackboard (BB), which is available online at:
http://webcourses.niu.edu. Unfortunately, a few weeks after the class
began many students in the EWT course experienced difficulty using the BB so
the course was moved to the Webboard (WB). This is the reason why some of my
data is from BB, although most is from the WB.
Participants
The EWT course had 12 students. There were four students who were not
willing to participate in face-to-face interviews but they were willing to
allow me to lurk in to the discussions. However, one out of four students
did not participate in face-to-face interview or online discussions.
Initially, the interviewees included eight participants—seven learners who were
enrolled in EWT course and one course instructor. One of the
committee members strongly recommended that I interview faculty who have
expressed reluctance to teach in an online class, learners who chose not to
enroll in any online class, and learners who withdrew after the first session
of any online course. Therefore, a total sample of this study
increased from 8 to 19 participants. The 19 interviewees were
divided into five groups. Group A consisted of seven learners who were
enrolled in EWT. Group B included one course instructor. Group C, consisted of
three non-course instructors—faculty who have expressed reluctance to teach an
online course (Group D), consisted of three participants who chose not to
enroll in any online course, and Group E consisted of five participants who
withdrew after the first session of any online course.
Face-to-face interviews were used with both groups A and B, and two of the
three participants in group C. E-mail interviews were used with one
person in group C and all participants in group D and E. In total, there
were 10 face-to-face interviews and nine e-mail interviews. As mentioned
before, three were 12 students enrolled in the EWT class and only one student
who did not participate in either the interview or online discussion.
Thus, the total number of participants in the content analysis was 11 learners
and one course instructor. The numbers of participants in this study
included 23 individuals, including both interview and content analysis of
online discussions (group A & B).
Data Analysis
For the case study, the purpose of data analysis is to link “to the fact that
data have usually been derived from interviews, field observations, and
documents” (Merriam, 1998, p. 193).
This study attempted to answer four research questions, which were framed by
four types of interactions: learner-content, learner-instructor,
learner-learner, and learner-interface interactions (Hillman et al., 1994;
Moore, 1989). The following research questions were:
Moreover, I conducted sub-questions to analyze content analysis of online transcripts from Blackboard (BB) and Webboard (WB), which built up on Henri’s (1992) five-step framework: participation, interaction, social, cognitive, and metacognitive. I was interested in how interactions started in online discussions, based on Henri’s model. The questions were:
Analysis of Content Analysis
I used Henri’s five-step discussion-analysis framework to measure
participation, interaction, social, cognitive, and metacognitive aspects of the
online transcripts during the four weeks. The four discussion topics were: Week
3: Engaged Learning with ITC, Week 5: KnowQuest Activities (1-3), Week 8:
LearnQuest Activities (1-3), and Week 11: CreatQuest Activities (1-3).
Therefore, these four selected topics covered almost all activities and were
analyzed using Henri’s five dimensions. The analysis of the transcripts
used a five-step discussion-analysis technique devised by Henri (1992) as shown
in Table 1, 2, and 3. It includes:
|
Dimension |
Analysis of
Online Transcripts |
Example |
|
Participative |
Discussion in four selected weeks Total number of messages Total number of lines Total number of sentences |
|
|
Interactive
|
Direct response (DR) Direct commentary (DC) Indirect response (IR) Indirect commentary (IC) (IS) |
“In response to Ray’s message 1” “I agree with Ray’s answer that…” “I think the answer is…” “I agree with that answer…” The statements that relate to subject under
discussion, but do not lead to any future or prior statements |
|
Social |
Social cues related such as self-introduction, expression of feeling
(e.g., I’m feeling great…”), greetings (e.g., hi everyone), and the use of
symbolic icons (i.e., (J). |
I analyzed the statements or part of the statement
instructor and learners posted on the WB and BB in the four selected weeks
based on the social cues) |
Table 1 The Analytical Framework (adapted and
modified from Henri, 1992, p. 125).
|
Reasoning Skills |
Analysis of Online Transcripts |
Example |
|
Elementary
clarification |
Observing or studying a problem identifying
its elements, and observing their linkages in order to come to a basic
understanding |
Identifying
relevant elements Reformulating the problem Asking
a relevant question Identifying
previously stated hypotheses |
|
In-dept
clarification |
Analyzing and understanding a problem to come to understanding which sheds light on the values, beliefs, and assumptions which underlie the statement of the problem |
Defining
the term Identifying
assumptions Establishing
referential criteria Seeking
out specialized information Making
a summary |
|
Inference |
Introduction and deduction, admitting or proposing an idea on the basis of its link with propositions already admitted as true |
Drawing
conclusion Making
generalization Formulating
a proposition which proceeds from previous statements |
|
Judgment |
Making,
decisions, statements, appreciations, evaluations and criticisms Sizing
up |
Judging
the relevance of solution Making value judgments Judging inferences |
|
Strategies |
Proposing co-ordinate actions for the application of a solution, or for allowing through on a choice or a decision |
Making
a decision on the action to be taken Proposing
one or more solution Interacting
with those concerned |
Table
2 Analytical Model: Cognitive Skills (adapted and modified from Henri, 1992,
p. 129).
As shown in Table 2, Henri explains the level of cognition in electronic involvements.
The cognitive skill involves problem solving and critical thinking skills
on the part of the student, as shown in Table 3. I employed these terms
to analyze the data from the online transcripts.
|
Dimension |
Analysis of Online Transcripts |
Example |
|
Evaluation |
Assessment, appraisal or verification of
one’s knowledge and skills, and of the efficacy of a chosen strategy |
Asking whether one’s statement is true Commenting on one’s manner of accomplishing a task |
|
Planning |
Selecting, predicting and ordering an
action or strategy necessary to the accomplishment of an action |
Predicting the consequences of an action Organizing aims by breaking them down into sub-objectives |
|
Regulation |
Setting up, maintenance and supervision of
the overall cognitive task |
Redirecting one’s efforts Recalling one’s objectives Setting up strategies |
|
Self-awareness |
Ability to identify, decipher and interpret
correctly the feelings and thoughts connected with a given aspect of the task |
“I’m pleased to have learned so much…” “I’m discouraged at the difficulties involved…” |
Table
3 Analytical Model: Metacognitive Skills (adopted and modified from Henri, 1992,
p. 132)
As shown in Table 3. I used metacognitive skills to analyze the data because it
was more comparable to the data in this study.
Findings to Date
The study was carried out from January 2002 - February 2003; analysis of the
data continues today. I expect to have the final results of the data
analysis in late May 2003. Thus, the preliminary results of the several
trends can be used to indicate initial answers to the three main research
questions.
Learners Perceive the Value of Interaction
Most participants (such as Ms. Patty, Ms.Vanessa, Ms Betty, & Ms Fay) said
they perceived the value of interaction where both synchronous and asynchronous
communication tools such as Blackboard (BB), Webboard (WB), and WebQuest (WQ)
were used to be highly valuable. Ms. Vanessa added that, “The instructor
required us to post our work to the WB, read and make a comment on other
messages.” The course instructor (Ionny) explained that, “The learners
perceived the value of interaction by exchanging ideas with one another and
instructor via e-mails, posts, chat, and frequent phone calls.”
Nature of the Relationship between the Four Interactions
Learner-content Interaction
Most learners (six of the seven) said the content was appropriate for the
objectives of the course and was presented in a clear and concise manner. Many
participants (such as Ms. Barbers, Ms. Vanessa, Ms. Fay, Ms. Marry, &
Jandra) said the BB, WB, and WQ enhanced their learning. Vanessa said, “I used
all three. The BB was really helpful and easy to access. It was
helpful to actually have something concrete to look at and to be able to see
student responses.” Ms. Barbers describes the course content, “the WB was
very good and it allowed me time flexible. I used the BB and WB for looking at
the assignments and posting the assignment and so it was nice to double check.”
However, some students (such as Ms. Marry & Betty) who have low technology
skills found the technology used in this course to be difficult to use:
Ms. Marry stated her frustration:
I felt like it was hard to navigate to WB or BB. I never remember
which one was which. There’s the one with the dog and the one with the
yellow. Because sometimes I would go and I would get right into the
yellow. And I could not go back and find those red buttons. There
would be those red buttons and I want to go back to these red buttons and I
could not find my way back.
Ionny gave the reason of the problems:
In this course that depends on the mediated communication, the chat and the
discussion board, the largest obstacle is simply that there are special
situations where the students are not well prepared. These students did
not come from our program [Instructional Technology]. They had not
previously had a technical skill course or anything else.
Learner-instructor Interaction
Most learners found their online interactions with the instructor (through the
chat room and discussion board) to be very helpful. Most participants (such as
Mr. Barbers, Ms. Betty, Ms. Jandra, & Ms. Marry) stated that the instructor
played learning-facilitor roles by giving assignments: Betty said, “He gave
encouraged us to bring questions to class on other technologies we want to
integrate” Moreover, Betty added that, “He puts us in groups near the end for
projects to allow us to interact more with other people plus to be able to read
other students’ responses.”
Ionny also offered help for assignments as part of this course by providing
them his contact information:
I gave them my phone number. I gave them my email. I gave them
my any contact information they needed. I told them we did not meet face
to face very often but during those times when we did meet face to face, I
offered time before class and after class to be able to do things like that.
Learner-learner Interaction
Most learners agreed that interactions with their classmates were very helpful
in doing projects and clearing up questions. Most learner-learner
interaction occurred because they had to work on a final project. Most
students for the final project picked partners in the same building so this was
a major drawback of measuring learner-learner interaction. Vanessa stated
that, “There were actually three of us in this building that worked together so
we had a lot of interaction. But as far as the interaction with the other
classmates it was low.”
Most participants (Ms. Betty, Ms. Fay, MS. Vanessa, MS. Marry, & MS.
Jandra) mentioned that they did not have more interaction with other classmates
until the final project. All participants said they exchanged ideas about
the course content, assignments, questions, etc. with other students via e-mail
and some post messages, chat, and phone calls.
For those who worked on the group project with someone in a different school
district, they discussed how they used e-mail, chat, and telephone to
communicate with one another. When asked about the reason to contact their
classmates for course-related purposes, all participants said for their “final
project.”
Vanessa said “to get feedback, to share ideas, to ask for suggestions anything
in the class.”
Learner-interface Interaction
Most learners were satisfied with the technology used in the classroom but they
preferred WB more that BB because they found it is more user-friendly
especially for those who have low technology skills. Jandra said “BB
works better but it failed: WB works better than BB. But I think that the
layout of BB is better but it just did not work. I think BB would have
been better if it worked, but it did not work. So, it was bad.”
From my interview and observation, I found that this course was suitable for
those who want to learn about using technology in learning—that is this course
should be the perquisite for EWT. Some participants (such as Ms. Betty,
Vanessa, & Ms. Fay) also agree with this. This is because some people
have a problem with BB and some are comfortable with both BB and
WB.
This might be the reason why some students (such as Jandra, Vanessa) said they
did not learn anything new because this course is too basic; however, some
people (such as Betty, Barbers) said they learned a lot of new things from this
course. Ionny stated: “I think WQ was the most heavily used, followed by
BB and WB.”
Factors Causing Students Reluctance in Taking Online Courses
These are some examples of why students were reluctant to take online
classes:
Kendra stated her reasons:
From my previous experience in two videoconferencing classes and half
on-line class, I prefer face-to-face interaction to totally on-line class. I
think I am not getting enough interaction with my instructors and my classmates
through on-line. If the course combines some face-to-face meetings and on-line
class, it would make some difference in my decision in enrolling that course.
Nathan said my major reason for not taking online course:
First, I used to attend the Web-based class (online class which use
Web-based to support) and the ITV class (use instructional TV to
support). I felt like I still need to meet with my instructor and
classmates in order to discuss the course content like assignments and
projects. After we discussed it synchronously and asynchronously I still
was not clear what I am going to do. Afterward, we used the phone call
and ended up with face-to-face meetings several times in that
semester. This made me feel like the entire online class settings
was not appropriate.
Factors Causing Students to Drop Out From Online Course
Some examples of why students dropped out from an online class.
Lee and Frank shared the same reason that they dropped out:
The reason I dropped the course was because I was taking another distance
education course with the same professor and she was teaching it in the same
format (online). Another reason was because of the amount of workload I thought
the course would have.
Factors Influencing Instructors to be Reluctant to Teach Online Course
In response to the question whether three faculty members have taught online
course before (only one faculty member has taught).
Tedy gave the reason he did not teach online courses:
I have put substantial components of my courses online (syllabi, course
readings, homework assignments, etc.), but I have not offered a course
exclusively online (that is, no face-to-face meetings). I will continue to
offer this hybrid format for all of my classes. Yes, you may interview me. Why
haven't you taken the opportunity to teach online? The courses I have taught
thus far at NIU (statistics and research methods) would be quite difficult to
offer as a completely online course due to the content.
Prof. Lamos said:
I used online elements, in all of my courses. Why didn’t you teach all
online class – totally online class? I don’t think that it fits well to
the classes that I have been teaching. For example, if I am teaching the
class in software development. I don’t believe it will work well for most
students to try to learn the detail of some kind of software package strictly
in online environment. If it worked at all, I believe it would be much
more time consuming for the students than to be in the class for they can get
help from me or from other students in the class right then looking them over
their shoulders and see what they are doing…
|
Week |
Number of
posts |
Number of words |
Number of lines |
Number of sentences |
Discussion period |
|
3 |
51 |
6809 |
537 |
358 |
2/13 – 2/20 |
|
5 |
43 |
7329 |
685 |
370 |
2/27–3/6 |
|
8 |
36 |
5421 |
565 |
267 |
3/20 – 3/27 |
|
11 |
30 |
5508 |
563 |
249 |
4/10 – 4/17 |
Table 4. The Level of Participation in Electronic
Discussions
I analyzed the number of messages, number of words, lines, and sentences as
shown in Table 4. In Week 3, participants posted a total of 51 messages.
In Week 5, the participants posted a total of 43 messages. In Week 8, which
involved the LearnQuest posting and discussion, this revealed fewer posts than
those in previous weeks because students only posted and read other classmates’
assignments and not many students posted comments to others’ assignments.
Week 8 only contained 36 posts. In Week 11, the discussion topic was
about CreateQuest activity to help students prepare the lessons for their final
projects. This discussion did not contain as many words, sentences, and
lines as the previous week because most learners were doing their final
projects. Therefore, in that week most learners dealt with their group
projects in their own time and they do not pay more attention to discussion in
the discussion board.
|
Weeks |
Direct
response (DR) |
Direct comment (DC) |
Indirect
response (IR) |
Indirect
comments (IC) |
Independent
statements (IS) |
|
3 |
7 (38%) |
2 (11.1%) |
3 (16.6%) |
6 (33.3%) |
1 (5.26%) |
|
5 |
5 (28%) |
1 (5%) |
3 (16.6%) |
1 (5.5%) |
8 (44%) |
|
8 |
3 (13.7%) |
2 (9%) |
2 (9%) |
3 (13.6%) |
12 (54.5%) |
|
11 |
4 (17.3%) |
3 (13%) |
2 (8.6%) |
3 (27.2%) |
11 (47.8%) |
Table 5. Interaction Occurred in Electronic
Discussions
In Week 3, most messages which contained assignments and final project referred
to the beginning (the starter). The discussion in Week 3 contained 51
messages. Out of 51 messages there were 38% DR, 11.1% DC, 16.6% IR, 33.3%
IC, and 5.26% IS. The discussion in Week 5 contained 42 messages. Out of
43 messages there were 28% DR, 5% DC, 16% IR, 5.5% IC, and 44% IS. The
data revealed that Week 3 and Week 5 contained more posts and interactions than
those in Week 8 and Week 11. It can be concluded that Week 3 and Week 5 class
session were too early for learners to worry about their assignment and final
projects so that learners had time to concentrate on discussion. In Week
8 and Week 11, most messages involved the assignments and final project and
also they did not have more interactions when compared to the early week (Week
3 &5). The questions and comments related to assignments and final
project, which most messages contained, IS more than any other relationships.
|
Weeks |
# of total |
# of social |
Average |
|
3 |
51 |
13 |
1.08 |
|
5 |
43 |
9 |
1 |
|
8 |
36 |
2 |
1 |
|
11 |
30 |
0 |
0 |
Table 6. The Extensive Rate of Social in Electronic
Discussions
In order to get to know one another in online learning environments, the users
will normally use social cues in the very beginning week of the class to introduce
themselves to classmates. This study will not contain big numbers of
social cues because it is an online class with combination of four face-to-face
meetings. In the first face-to-face meeting the learners and instructor
had a chance to introduce themselves in a class. Moreover, some of them
came from the same school districts so they knew each other before.
However, a few of them did not attend the first face-to-face meeting due to
bad weather. Thus, this made them use social cues to introduce themselves
again in the discussion board and chat before they had the second face-to-face
meeting. In Week 3 several learners included self-introduction in their
messages. By Week 11 learners knew each other well enough both from
the second face-to-face meeting and the online discussions so the numbers
of social cues decreased. Since the learners knew each other well enough,
the messages in the latest weeks such as Week 8 and 11 were more informal.
|
Weeks |
Elementary
clarification |
In-depth clarification |
Inferencing |
Judgment |
Strategies |
|
3 |
15 (20.56%) |
20 (27.4%) |
32 (43.8%) |
3 (4.1%) |
3 (4.1%) |
|
5 |
24 (32.9%) |
11(15%) |
26 (35.6%) |
10 (13.6%) |
2 (2.7%) |
|
8 |
15 (41.6%) |
5 (13.8%) |
14 (38.8%) |
13 (36%) |
4 (11%) |
|
11 |
8 (40%) |
7 (35%) |
6 (30%) |
5 (25%) |
2 (10%) |
Table 7. The Extensive Rate of Cognitive in
Electronic Discussions
Table 7 shows that the elementary, in-depth, inference, and judgment categories
contained more percentages than the strategies because the learners used the
discussion areas to share ideas about assignments and final project. For
instance, one assignment required the learners to choose the WQs and explain
how WQs can be applied in the classroom teaching and learning and post them
into the discussion area. Thus, to make sure that they chose the right
WQs, they would make a summary, drew the conclusion, made a judgment, and then
asked the classmates by posting on the discussion board. The strategies
category is a problem solving process in which learners post some problems in
the discussion board and others try to offer help by using their
experiences. However, this category did not contain a big number when
compared to the first three categories.
|
Weeks |
Evaluation |
Planning |
Regulation |
Self-awareness |
|
3 |
7 (87.5%) |
1 (12.5%) |
0 |
0 |
|
5 |
0 |
5 (41.6%) |
3 (25%) |
4 (33.3) |
|
8 |
0 |
4 (57%) |
0 |
3 (42.8%) |
|
11 |
0 |
8 (72.7%) |
1 (9%) |
2 (18%) |
Table 8. The Extensive Rate of Metacognitive in
electronic discussions
The metacognitive knowledge was difficult to capture. Of the
metacognitive skill categories, “evaluation” contained larger number than any
other categories which included 88 percent of metacognitive posts; the other
three contain low percentage. It can be concluded that this class
discussion is “engaging learning with technology,” so the discussion did not
contain many metacognitive factors as such psychology and theory classes.
Summary
The result of the interviews indicates that learners have a high level of
satisfaction with the course content in learning to use technologies and integrate
them into classroom teaching and learning. All participants agree that the
Internet is a useful tool for them to interact with each other online.
However, two learners who had more advanced technology skills complained that
this course was too basic for them and they did not learn anything new. I
would recommend to the department to break the class into two sections (the
beginning and advanced) for learners to learn more. Moreover, all
interviewees have voiced concerned and recommended that they need prompt
feedback from their classmates and especially a course instructor in
synchronous discussions. Most participants were satisfied with the course even
though they had limited interactions with their classmates and
instructor. In addition to increased interaction, most interviewees said
they need instructors to be “starters” in discussion and “wrap up” in each
topic. Furthermore, some learners (who have minimal skills in technology)
suggested that in order for them to use technology, they need instructor to
lead them step-by-stem in the first and second face-to-face meetings.
Synchronous and asynchronous discussions and face-to-face meetings were
extremely helpful in answering questions allowed learners to share ideas with
other classmates and a course instructor about assignment, final projects, and
other activities-related to the course. In face-to-face meetings the
instructor can demonstrate learners how to use technologies such as digital
cameras, scanner, and answer the questions related to the course
goal.
For the content analysis, I analyzed the average length of a learner’s
post. For example, in Week 3, the learners and instructor posted, on
average, 133.5 words, or about seven sentences. On average, learners
posted more often during the early weeks than later weeks because in the later
week learners concentrated more on their final project. They posted when
they were looking for more help in later weeks due to projects and
computer/technology–related problems. Also, many needed help in order to
implement technology in their teaching. Most of the messages posted
contained the course content, computer and technology skills, and the course
projects. Not only did the learners share knowledge, but also content analysis
indicated the messages contained discussions of a high-cognitive level.
Furthermore, after reviewing the messages each week I was able to distinguish
learners’ ability levels on both the discussion board and the real-time
chat. For example, many introverted learners posted more messages and
demonstrated higher cognitive skills in an online discussion board as compared
to face-to-face meetings. Also, the learners compared the messages posted
by the class to get feedback on the technology and tools used in classrooms.
Analysis of data revealed that although perceptions regarding interaction
varied among all interviewed, upon closer analysis, all course participants
agreed that the interactivity level was at least adequate in learning. Detailed
discussion analysis substantiated these perceptions, showing that deep levels
of processing and interactivity were achieved.
References
Aoki, K. (1995). Synchronous Multi-user textual communication in
international tele-collaboration. Communication Institute for Online
Scholarship, 5(4). [Online]. Available: http://www.cios.org/getfile/AOKI_V5N495
Berg, Z. L., & Collins, M.
P. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom, Volumes
I, II, and III. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.
Clemens, A. (2002). EWT 590 workshop: Engaging with technology.
Courses syllabus, unpublished.
Crossman, D. M. (1997). The evolution of the World Wide Web as an emerging
instructional technology tool. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction
(pp. 19-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
December, J., (1996). Unit of analysis for Internet communication.
Journal of communication, 46(1), 14-38.
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction:
The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 7 (3), 8-21.
Garrison, D. R. (1990). An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing
to facilitate education at distance. American Journal of Distance
Education, 4(3), 13-24
Hana, D. E. (1998). Higher education in an era of digital competition:
Emerging organization methods. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
2(1). [Online]. Available: http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/v2n1_hanna.asp
Hara, N., Kling, R.
(1999). Students’ frustrations with a Web-based distance
educationcourse. First Monday, 4 (12). [Online]
Available: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C., (1998). Content analysis of
online discussion in an applied educational psychology. Center
for Research on Learning and Technology, No. 2-98. [Online] Available: http://crlt.indiana.edu/publications/techreport.pdf
Heeter, C. (1999). Technology enhance learning.
[Online].Available at: http://commtechlab.msu.edu
Heinch, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D., and Smaldino, S.E. (1999). Instructional
media and new technologies for learning (5th Ed.). Prentice Hall,
Englewood Criffs, NJ.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.
R. Kaye (Eds.),
Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden paper
(pp. 115-136). New York: Springer.
Hillman, D.C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994).
Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of
contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 31-42.
Jonassen, D, et al. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated
communication indistance education. The American Journal of Distance
Education. 9( 2) 1-4.
Kahn, B. H. (1997). Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
King, J., & Doerfert. (2001). Interaction in the distance education
setting. [Online]. Available: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/ssu/AgEd/NAERM/s-e-4.htm
Lewis, J., Whitaker, J., Julian, J. (1995). Distance education for
the 21st century: The future of national and international telecommuting
networks in distance education. In Z. Berg & M. Collin (Eds.), Computer
mediated communication and the online classroom (vol. 3, pp. 13-29).
Cresskill, NJ: Haplton Press.
Luetkehans, M., & Robinson,R. (2002). Online professional
development for teachers: Findings from a formative and collaborative
inquiry. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 2002: Proceedings
of ED-MEDIA 2002 (CD-Rom, p. 1190). Denver, CO: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study
applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
McComb, M. (1993). Augmenting a group discussion course with
computer-mediated communication in a small college setting.
International Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st
Century, 1(3). [Online]. Available: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1993/n3/mccomb.txt
McIsaac, M. (1999). Peadgogy, the Internet and the classroom.
[Online]. Available: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/paper_artibyte.html
Moore, M. G. (1989).
Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2),
1-6
Moore, M. G. (2002). What does research say about the learners using
computer-mediated communication in distance learning? American Journal
of Distance Education, 16(2), 65-81
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view.
Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.
Mathew, N., & Dohery-Poirier, M. (2000). Using the World Wide Web to
enhance classroom instruction. First Monday, 5(3).
[Online] Available: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_3/mathew/index.html
Office of Higher Education (2001). Higher education on the Web,
7(1). [Online] Available at: http://www.nea.org/he
Paulsen, M. F., (1995). An overview of CMC and the online classroom in
distance education. In Z. Berg & M. Collin (Eds.), Computer
mediated communication and the online classroom (vol. 3, pp. 13-29).
Cresskill, NJ: Haplton Press.
Paulsen, M. F., (1996). Innovative Computer Conferencing Courses. DEOSNEWS
1(14).
Ritchi, D. C., & Hoffman, B. (1997). Incorporating instructional
design principles with the World Wide Web. In B. H., Hahn, (Ed) Web-based
instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H., Patel, D. (2000). The virtual
university: The Internet and resource-based learning. London, Kogan
Page.
Smith, C. K. (1996). Convenience vs. connection: Computer students’
views on distance learning. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of
the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico. (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 725).
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New
ways of working in the network organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics.
(1998). Distance education in higher education institutions: Incidence,
audiences, and plans to expand.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of
interaction. The AmericanJournal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-2.
Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated
interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.
Walther, J. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated
interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
Walther, J. (1995). Relational aspects of computermediated-communication:
Experiment observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186-203.
Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal,
interpersonal, and hypersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1),
3-43.
ITFORUM PAPER #68 - Understanding Participation in Online Courses: A Case Study of Perceptions of Online Interaction by Noppadol Prammanee. Posted on ITFORUM on March 14, 2003. The author retains all copyrights of this work. Used on ITFORUM by permission of the author. Visit the ITFORUM WWW Home Page at http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/