Analyzing Students’ Perceptions of Their Learning in Online and Hybrid First-Year Composition Courses

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

Analyzing Students’ Perceptions of Their Learning in Online and Hybrid First-Year Composition Courses Patricia Webb Boyd Department of English, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

Abstract This article presents a study of first-year composition (fyc) courses that were taught in both online and hybrid formats in order to determine students’ perceptions on how much they learned in them. The students’ responses to an extensive survey, in which they analyzed their experiences in their courses, point to larger questions about our individual pedagogical assumptions as well as larger issues related to the structures of first-year composition courses and their required status. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Hybrid; Online; First-year composition; Student perceptions

1. Introduction For over ten years, educators have debated the benefits and drawbacks of online education. In the beginning, discussions focused on whether or not we should actually teach online because some feared that those courses were not as rigorous as face-to-face (f2f) courses. Now, however, there seems to be an acknowledgement of the reality of online education—not a fatalist attitude of “online education is taking over the world” but a realist one of “online education is here to stay. Now what are we going to do with it?” From this realist position many have claimed that, since online education is upon us, we can work to use these technologies to enact learner-centered education (LCE).1 LCE positions students as co-constructors of knowledge by situating them as active, disciplined participants in their education rather than passive receivers of preconstructed “truths.” The hope is that if students take more responsibility for their learning, they will actually learn more. ∗

Email address: [email protected]. See, for example, Duffy, T., & Kirkely, J. (2004) Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90, and Hutchins (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6 (3). . 1

8755-4615/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.01.002

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

225

Currently, these claims are more often than not vetted through a lens of caution.2 Just because online courses may lend themselves to the goals of LCE does not mean that students’ learning necessarily increases. Some researchers have argued that students’ learning is actually hindered by online instruction because students do not have the necessary f2f contact with their instructors nor do they have the dialogic exchange that is crucial for learning in f2f classrooms. Particular to first-year composition (fyc), critics claim that it should be taught in a f2f environment because it is the “gateway” course to the university and is one of the few courses on campus that is small enough for students to be guaranteed one-on-one contact with their professors. Even amidst the current debates about the benefits and drawbacks of online education, more and more online writing courses are being offered at universities and colleges across the country. At Arizona State University (ASU), for example, the first online composition course was taught in the English Department in Summer 1999 and was followed in Fall 2000 by a small-scale pilot program that offered hybrid composition courses that met one day in a f2f traditional or mediated classroom and one day in an online, Blackboard-supported environment. Both types of course environments have continued to be used at ASU, with student demand increasing every year. And ASU is certainly not alone in this move. As more and more calls are made for increasing use of technologies in first-year composition courses, it becomes urgent for us to ask—and begin to answer—the following questions: Are our uses of technology helping us achieve the LCE goals we have established? Are the claimed benefits of online courses being realized? To ensure that our uses of technologies are helping students achieve our learning outcomes while at the same time providing them with greater flexibility, we need to assess the effectiveness of our current practices. While other studies have certainly worked to address similar questions as the ones I raise (particularly within the educational, social sciences, and nursing fields), few studies have looked at online and hybrid first-year composition courses and fewer yet have actually analyzed students’ perceptions of these writing courses. Studies undertaken by those in rhetoric and composition typically begin with the teachers’ and/or researchers’ perceptions; although they might include a student account along the way, the main focus of the articles remains on teachers’ evaluation of the success of the courses.3 While teachers’ perceptions are certainly valuable, we must also seriously consider the students’ perceptions. Since the introduction of 2

The seminal article that urged us to take a cautionary look at technology is Hawisher, Gail and Selfe, Cynthia (1991) Rhetorics of technology and the electronic writing class. CCC 42 (1), 55–65. Selfe, Cynthia (1999) Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP. Selfe argues that even while we need to pay attention to the way “technological literacy” is changing all conceptions of literacy, she cautions us to critically investigate the impact of technologies on learning. Others that echo this cautionary view: Fabos, Bettina, and Young, Michelle (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research 69 (3), 217–259; Moran and Charles (1999). Access: the ‘A’ word in technology studies In Gail Hawisher & Cynthia Selfe (Eds.), Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies (pp. 205–220). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. 3 See, for example, Sorapure, Madeleine (2006) Between modes: Assessing students’ new media compositions. Kairo’s 10 (2); Kitchens, Marshall W. Student inquiry in new media: Critical media literacy and video games. Kairos, 10 (2); David Sapp and James Simon (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses: Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition, 22 (4), 471–89; Hewett, Beth (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student

226

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

online and hybrid writing course environments, no large-scale projects have assessed students’ perceptions of their learning experiences in courses that are delivered online (either fully or partially) through Blackboard. To address this gap, I created and administered an extensive survey that studied students’ perceptions of their interactions with fellow students, their interactions with their instructor, and the impact of technology on their learning. What becomes clear through an analysis of these findings is that while the online classroom space is ripe with possibilities for achieving LCE outcomes in composition courses, the actual space of the online environment can limit students’ interactions within it.

2. Review of Literature Interaction as a method for learning is a core principle in both theories of LCE and composition pedagogy and praxis. As is common knowledge in our field, one of the biggest potential benefits of online education is new and unique opportunity for students to interact with the instructor, their peers, and the content of the course. Katrina Meyer (2003) found that threaded discussions led students to spend more time on their coursework and more time interacting with their peers, hence giving themselves “additional time to reflect on the material, to ask questions, and to participate more equitably in class discussions” (p. 62). Further, in their study of 369 online students at Empire State College, Jennifer Richardson and Karen Swan (2003) found an important correlation between students’ satisfaction with and sense of learning in the course and their level of participation in the online discussion boards. Interactions with both their instructor and their peers are crucial to many students’ success and to positive perceptions of their learning in the class (Daugherty & Funke, 1998; Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, & Palma-Rivas, 2000; O’Reilly & Newtown, 2002). Martha Daugherty and Barbara Funke (1998) found that over half of the graduate and undergraduate students in their study valued the online courses in large part because of “the degree and quality of communication among classmates and with instructors while participating in online activities” (p. 8). In fact, 77% of the undergraduate students in their study reported that the classes’ consistent use of e-mail and listservs supported greater learning because the technologies “encouraged cooperative dialogues rather than isolation” (p. 8). When this kind of dialogue is missing and an online class requires students to operate more in isolation, students perceive the class to be much less effective and beneficial. Despite the potential for isolation, students across multiple studies commented on several benefits of online discussions (Bullen, 1998; Meyer, 2003; O’Reilly & Newtown, 2002; Swan, 2003). Students emphasized the importance of reading their peers’ posts in a nonhostile environment in which all perspectives could be offered and therefore considered. Some students in Mark Bullen’s (1998) study “indicated that they appreciated the potential that many-tomany communication offered. The access to other students’ ideas and opinions, the fact that everybody had equal access to the ‘floor,’ and the importance of feedback and interaction were cited by students as positive impacts” (p. 9–10). Further, students felt that their contributions writing. Computers and Composition, 23 (1), 4–31; Evans, Ellen (2007). A break in transaction: Examining students’ responses to digital texts. Computers and Composition, 24 (1), 56–73.

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

227

to class discussions were better because they had more time to develop their ideas before posting to the online discussions. Meyer (2003) found students in her study reported that “threaded discussions were often more ‘thoughtful,’ more reasoned, and drew evidence from other sources (either other writers or studies pertinent to the discussion)” (p. 61). However, in order to realize these potentials, instructors must pay careful attention to their assignment construction, their feedback to students, and the interactions between instructor/student and student/student. As researchers on students’ perceptions of online learning have consistently pointed out, instructors must carefully craft assignments in order to ensure that when we ask students to post messages to an online discussion board, the activities actually require them to interact with their instructors and each other. Bullen (1998) stated that two kinds of messages can be posted to online discussion boards—independent and interactive: “Independent messages deal with the topic of discussion, but make no implicit or explicit reference to any other messages. Interactive messages deal with the topic, but also refer to other messages by responding to them, elaborating on them, or building on them in some fashion” (p. 7). Obviously, the latter of the two types—interactive messages—is the one in alignment with LCE principles. Too often, though, students post the independent messages rather than interactive ones. One of the key problems, according to Bullen (1998) and others, is that two divergent metaphors shape the experiences students have in the discussion boards. Students who are dissatisfied with the experience of online boards tend to view the discussion through a “bulletin board” metaphor and those who found the experience useful tended to view them through a “conference” metaphor. Students who ascribe to the former metaphor are “unable to perceive the individual messages as part of a discussion and thus their ability to respond critically was hampered because for them there was no real discussion” (Bullen, 1998, p. 8). While students certainly have an important part to play in making online discussions interactive, the instructor has the responsibility to set up the discussion board assignments so that the connections between the discussion board and the course goals are clearly explicated. When students do not understand these connections, they have a tendency to post random messages (bulletin board metaphor) rather than engage with their peers’ messages (conference metaphor). As Bullen (1998) argued, “online participation has to be seen by students as something integral to their success in the course. If it is viewed as busy work that they do only in order to get the participation marks, then it is unlikely that meaningful discussions will result” (p. 19). When creating assignments, though, online instructors must pay attention to the ways that institutional power structures are unchanged in online environments. Even with all the possibilities for new course dynamics offered by online education environments, the basic institutional pedagogical structure of a teacher creating course material and students completing assignments remains the same; the teacher evaluates the work and gives the grades. While one of the principles of LCE is that students take more responsibility for their learning, teachers are still very much responsible for clearly explaining why students are doing what they are doing. Although students are often positioned as co-constructors of knowledge, the teacher is the one who establishes the parameters for the discussion through selection of readings, activities, writing assignments, and, of course, through the giving of grades. Therefore, instructors must establish a delicate balance between providing enough structure for students to see the useful-

228

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

ness/importance of the discussions while still emphasizing a collaborative, student-centered view of learning. Within this delicate balance, instructors must address one of the biggest concerns voiced by online students—that the online environment does not allow for the familiar face-toface interaction that provides crucial feedback to students. It is crucial, then, for online instructors to find strategies to provide prompt feedback and multiple kinds of feedback (Picciano, 2002). Susan Achtemeier, Libby Morris, and Catherine Finnegan (2003) suggestd that one key solution is for instructors to provide two kinds of feedback: “Faculty should give immediate acknowledgement feedback upon receipt of an assignment since the student lacks the assurance of having physically ‘handed-in” the assignment. Prompt information feedback regarding the content of the student’s work is necessary as well” (p. 5). Instead of waiting to send a comment after they have had time to read the assignment, teachers should also send a quick message to the student immediately after receiving the text. Their research showed that such messages can go a long way toward remedying online students’ anxiety by increasing interaction between students and instructors. No matter the method, it is incumbent upon teachers to increase both the amount and quality of interactions with online students in order to help students succeed in these environments. What this research suggests, then, is that interaction in a variety of formats is crucial to students’ learning. Clearly, all varieties of communication with students—not just discussion board exchanges—play an important part in creating interactive communities. Students’ perceptions of the kinds of interaction in online courses will help us better understand which of our practices are effective and which need to be revised. Therefore, student perceptions need to be further studied on a much larger scale.

3. Methods In order to determine if these potentials for interaction between faculty/student and student/student are being realized in the hybrid and online courses we are offering at ASU, I devised an online survey that was based on Arthur Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson’s Seven Principles of Learner Centered Education, ones that are promoted by the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR).4 The seven key principles are student-faculty contact; cooperation among students; active learning; prompt instructor feedback; time on task; communication of high expectations; and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning (ABOR, “Learner-Centered Education”). When LCE principles are compared to the Writing Program Administrator’s Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition,5 which has been adopted by ASU (and many other universities across the country), we see many similarities, suggesting that the two guidelines are in alignment in significant ways. These principles—and how they apply to online teaching and learning—served as the basis for both the construction of my survey and the See website for complete listing and explanation of principles: http://www.abor.asu.edu/4 special programs/ lce/ugprinciples lce.htm. 5 See http://www.english.ilstu.edu/Hesse/outcomes.html for complete list of principles. 4

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

229

analysis of the results. I created the survey in consultation with ASU’s Instructional Technology Unit who helped me put it online. After the survey was given to 19 sections of hybrid and online ENG 101/102 courses at ASU during Fall 2004, I tabulated and analyzed the statistical results as well as the open-ended responses given by 170 students who voluntarily completed the online survey. Since the research indicates that the two most important factors of an online course are the interaction between faculty/student and student/student and that many of the other LCE principles are impacted by those interactions, I have organized my findings under those two headings. My study adds to the current conversation about students’ learning in online course environments in several ways. First, as is clear from the above review of literature, very few researchers have studied first-year composition courses. Some have looked at the writing done in different kinds of courses. For example, Richardson and Swan’s (2003) study looked at types of writing assignments in all the online courses at Empire State College during Spring 2000, but they did not designate which, if any, courses are writing ones. In her study of two graduate courses—she does not specify what kind of courses they were—Meyer (2003) found that being a good writer “became of supreme importance in the only setting, which not only included the ability to express ideas clearly, but taking the time to re-read one’s postings before sending them to the class site to avoid making embarrassing mistakes” (p. 61). However, her definition of writing errors is based on grammatical errors—“grammatical, spelling, or punctuation error” (p. 61)—which are not the main focus in composition scholars’ research nor in the LCE principles that guided this study. Barbara Anderson’s (2006) study is one of the few of its kind to consider students’ perceptions in depth. However, he did not analyze students in writing courses; instead, he focused on students in teacher training programs. What follows, then, is a map of the current state of affairs in these writing courses at ASU, one that can serve as an example of the information that can be collected by other universities that want to undertake assessments of their own programs. While this survey focused on students’ use of the Blackboard course framework, the results point to durable issues that impact online, mediated teaching no matter what technologies are being used. The findings that follow indicate certain large trends that we should pay attention to as we continue to offer (or increase the offerings of) online and hybrid first-year writing courses.

4. Interaction with Faculty When analyzing the possibilities for and the quality/quantity of interaction with their instructors, students in my study reported that they were dissatisfied with those interactions. The dominant reasons for this dissatisfaction seemed to be a lack of opportunities to interact with their instructors, general confusion about the instructors’ expectations of them, and uncertainty about their evaluation of students’ work. Interestingly enough, students reported that while they wanted more interaction with their instructors, the online and hybrid environments afforded many of them with new opportunities for interaction that were not present in face-to-face courses. Students’ dissatisfaction with the amount of interaction with their instructors was mostly found in their responses to fixed-answer questions:

230

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

“There were sufficient opportunities to interact online with my instructor.”

Disagree: 36.2% Strongly disagree: 48.3%

Agree: 5.2% Strongly agree: 3.4%

Neither agree/disagree: 6.9% Given that 84.5% of the students disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, it seems clear that students wanted more interaction with their instructor. If we were to use this response as our primary indicator of students’ satisfaction, it would suggest that the potentials of online learning are not being enacted. However, the lack of sufficient opportunities for contact might not be attributable to the online and hybrid format, given students’ responses to a question that asked students to compare the amount of interaction they had with the instructor in their online experience to their traditional classroom experiences: “The amount of interaction you had with the professor in this online or hybrid course”?

Lower: 19.0% Much lower: 6.9%

Higher: 24.1% Much higher: 28.5%

About the same: 22.4% 52.6% of the students reported that their interaction with their instructors in online and hybrid writing courses was higher or much higher than interactions with the instructors in f2f courses while 22.4% answered that their interactions with their online instructor were about the same as their interactions with their f2f instructors. In total, then, 75% of students—3/4ths of them—had increased or similar amounts of contact while only 25.9% of students rated their interaction lower or much lower contact with their instructors. These findings suggest that the online environment was not necessarily offering fewer opportunities for interaction with instructors. Students’ responses to the open-ended questions reflected a similar ambivalence about the amount of contact they had with their instructors in online course environments. Some students attributed their dissatisfaction directly to the online environment, pointing to particular factors related to the online environment: • “It (the online course) was different because I felt that I did not have as much of a connection or interaction with the teacher and other students in the class, like I would of [sic] in a normal classroom environment.” • “I think I had a better relationship with my face-to-face professor as opposed to th e online one.” • “I liked the teacher; however, I didn’t like the class. I feel that some students need more one on one approach in order to do well in a course. I am pretty sure I am one of those students.” Even though these comments reflect dissatisfaction with the online course environment, they do so in a conscientious way. They do not blame the instructor or “bash” the class. No “knee-jerk” hate for the course, instructor, or material is expressed. Because students judged the online course against their experiences in f2f courses, many students found the online framework lacking.

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

231

Although some students did see the online environment as less effective than the f2f one, a majority of the students’ responses to the open-ended questions echoed their answers to the fixed-questions; that is, while they were used to seeing their instructor f2f more often, they actually had more interaction and more effective interaction with their instructor in the online and hybrid courses. Students wrote • “I think there was more interaction with other students and the instructor in this hybrid course. In a traditional class I generally interacted less than I did using the Blackboard format.” • “The teacher is more willing to answer your questions because there is not a limited time amount on the online course.” • “I feel like communication between the instructor and me is more efficient.” These comments begin to explain why 75% of students perceived that they had the same or greater amount of interaction with their instructor in the online course environment. Students seemed to make a distinction between having access to the instructor and the actual interaction they had with the instructor. It seems that students had more opportunities to interact with their instructors in the online courses and that the online environment provided unique opportunities for them to interact with their instructors. Since they clearly value interaction (as indicated by their responses to the question I opened this section with), the fact that they could engage with their instructors more in the online class was perceived by students as a benefit of the course. However, we still have the sticky problem of students’ perception that there were too few opportunities to interact with their instructors—despite the acknowledgment that they interacted more with their online instructors than with their f2f teachers. In order to understand the reasons students still perceived a lack of opportunities to interact with their instructors, we need to turn to another significant aspect of student/instructor interaction (and an important goal of LCE and composition pedagogy)—prompt feedback. As research has shown, a crucial part of any writing course is the instructor’s prompt written feedback on students’ writing. This feedback becomes even more important when students never meet their instructors f2f since written responses to their writing become one of the primary (if not the primary) modes of learning and interaction. It’s not surprising, then, that students’ perception of the timeliness and quality of instructor feedback tends to have a significant impact on their sense of the success of the course. The students in my study reported that the instructors responded in a timely manner: “When you asked the instructor a question online, when did you typically receive feedback?”

Immediately (less that 4 hours): 27.6% Two days: 3.4%

Less than a day (5–24 hours): 44.9% 3 or more days, but less than a week: 6.9% Never: 1.7% Of those who asked for help (15.5% reported that they did not ask for help), 72.5% of students answered that they received feedback within 24 hours—which is certainly considered timely by current literature about online education. Further, in the open-ended questions, some students remarked on the quality of the teachers’ feedback to both discussion board posts and essays was useful—that is, the content feedback Achtmeier, Morris and Finnegan (2003) described:

232

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

• “The instructor posts were helpful. It gave you feedback on your writing and reading interpretations.” • “The online activities and journals helped significantly to my learning because it gave you helpful input on how to write your argumentative essays.” Some students also commented that they received useful feedback about their grades: • “The use of online grade posting helped. I like to check up on my grades.” • “Grade sheets helped to let me know where I stood. Overall the set up was very helpful and easy to navigate, instant results.” These comments convey that some students perceived that they received feedback in a timely fashion and valued the kind/quality of feedback they did receive. While these comments suggest that many students were happy with the level of feedback from their instructor, the majority of students still expressed dissatisfaction. Although they received feedback within 24 hours, many students still felt that they did not receive feedback in time to help them with their work: • “The other thing to that is that the course was sort of difficult because I was only able to speak to my teacher once a week and email isn’t really that fast when you have an urgent question.” • “It’s hard to receive immediate feedback when taking an online class because the teacher is not there to help if problems occur.” • “Questions that occurred couldn’t be answered as often. Because we only meet once and our instructor only checks email on office hours, we are stuck if a question arose between due dates.” (Italics mine) These posts reflect that students have differing definitions of “timely.” The first two comments highlight one view that cuts across responses: The students saw their questions as “urgent” and wanted “immediate feedback.” The last response represents a few students who wanted help “between due dates,” thus suggesting that they did not expect an immediate response but still wanted feedback more quickly than they had received it. Both definitions, however, present situations where students expected greater things from the online environment than they got. Perhaps they assumed that since the online forum could allow for immediate access to their teacher that they should get immediate feedback from their teacher. In f2f courses, students would not receive the kind of immediate feedback that they are expecting in an online course. 72.5% of students in my survey received feedback from their instructors within 24 hours. Unless their f2f instructors immediately replied to students’ e-mails, they would not get feedback from their f2f instructors faster than they did in their online courses. So, these responses suggest that the students in my survey want online courses to include the positive aspects of f2f courses but also want the online environment to be better than f2f. It remains to be seen if these expectations are reasonable or not, but according to the students who responded to my survey, current uses of online courses at ASU are not meeting their expectations. Besides extremely high expectations for the course, students’ dissatisfaction seems to be based in students’ confusion about the instructors’ expectations for the discussion board assignments. Statistics from my study suggested that overall students were not clear about how

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

233

the teacher expected them to use the technology and how that use of the technology tied into/affected their grades: “I was clear about how my instructor expected me to use the online course material”:

Disagree: 41.4% Strongly disagree: 48.3%

Agree: 3.4% Strongly agree: 1.7

Neither agree/disagree: 5.2% 89.7% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, indicating either that students perceived that the instructor did not make her/his expectations clear or they did not understand the teacher’s presentation of this information. Similar results were illustrated by this response: “I was clear about how my participation on the discussion board would be evaluated and affect my course grade”:

Disagree: 41.4% Strongly disagree: 48.3%

Agree: 3.4% Strongly agree: 3.5%

Neither agree/disagree: 3.4% 89.7% (the same percentage who reported that they were not clear about their instructors’ expectations) were not clear on how their participation in discussion boards would be evaluated, illustrating that the lack of clear expectations and clear evaluation guidelines were perceived in similar ways by as similar number of students. In their responses to the open-ended questions, students explained the reason for these confusions: • “One problem was that the discussion board was required and factored into grade although it is nothing but an inconvenience that hurts students’ grades.” • “The online part of the class is just busy work. It actually doesn’t help.” • “Well, I do all the work because it is counted. That is like half of your grade in these types of classes. It is important to do the assignments and participate in the discussion board. Just more time using a computer, but still essentially doing the same work.” • “The Blackboard stuff was just used to draw more grades out of students and give them many small meaningless assignments in order to make the course seem like it contained more content than it really did.” Although not all students were as critical as the last comment above, a significant number of their responses suggest that students did not understand the goals for the online work nor the significance of it. Because they did not see the larger value in the assignments, they ended up doing the work because it counted as part of their grade, not because they felt they learned from it. The instructors obviously felt that the discussion boards were pedagogically important but it seems that many of them did not convey their significance to students, which suggests that we may want to examine the methods we use to explain course goals. Perhaps the lack of face-to-face contact is a part of this because we often use class time to build those connections in the ways we explain assignments, even if we do not have a prepared plan to do so. Or perhaps students are not used to “reading” online courseware in a way

234

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

that allows them to make the connections between class tasks and their writing and learning. Regardless of the reason, it is clear from my study that many students did not understand the importance of the assignments and thus deemed them “busy work.” This perception of the online tasks, then, surely contributed to their dissatisfaction with their interactions with their instructors. Overall, then, these findings suggest students want more interaction with their instructors—in both online and f2f classes. And yet the amount of interaction and the timeliness of the interactions are not the only factors that are important to students. Confusion about how the online interactions tied into the course goals and how they were going to be evaluated on those interactions was a key factor that negatively impacted students’ perceptions of the course and their learning in it. These conclusions support Sisko Mallinen’s (2001) argument that it is “important to consider the teacher’s role as the designer and manager of the new learning environments. Although learning is a student’s individual growth process, there is evidence that teachers can make a difference” (p. 148). Reminding us that teachers are still responsible for “clear goal setting, structuring the curriculum content, clarity of presentation, frequent questioning, use of immediate exercise after presentation of new content, and use of evaluation, feedback, and corrective instruction,” Mallinen (2001, p. 148) emphasized that teachers must find a balance between providing students with enough direction while still emphasizing learner-centered praxis. We need to include a focus on teaching students to effectively interact online and to “read” the online course environment in order to determine the pedagogical goals. As John Stephenson (2001) pointed out, features of online learning

are not necessarily taken up by learners without considerable effort by tutors and programme designers to ensure that they are fully used. Many students, it seems, respond to the notion of a course in a traditional manner, seeing the experience as being just another course delivered online rather than an online experience from which considerable learning can take place. (p. 221)

While Stephenson (2001) put responsibility on tutors and designers, it is clear from my study that students expect to receive this guidance from their teachers who are, after all, students’ primary contact in the course. As ShirleyAlexander and David Boud (2001) pointed out, the teacher must still work to “maximize students’ learning from experience” (p. 14). Clearly, then, teachers have an important role to play in online course environments, but the current situation is not allowing us to realize the full potentials that the technologies offer. To do so effectively involves more than just the timeliness and quality of feedback—two core goals of LCE; it also involves rethinking our basic pedagogical assumptions and, as Quentin Whitlock (2001) highlighted, the ability to design and manage effective online course environments “is not acquired in a three-day workshop” but will more realistically take “over an average of four years and may take a further five years to achieve expert status” (p. 189). Instead of being disheartening, this estimation should remind us of the complexity of the task we’ve undertaken by implementing online courses.

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

235

5. Interactions with Peers The second crucial factor that impacts students’ perceptions of the online course environment is their interaction with fellow students. Overall, students reported that they liked the exchanges with their fellow students on Blackboard and wanted more opportunities to interact with them, even though they reported mixed feeling about the extent to which these interactions are crucial to their learning: “There was sufficient opportunity to interact online with classmates:”

Disagree: 41.4% Strongly disagree: 43%

Agree: 7% Strongly agree: 1.7%

Neither agree/disagree: 6.9% 84.4% of students reported insufficient opportunities (disagree and strongly disagree) to interact with their peers in the online environments. However, much like the responses to the questions about their instructors, a significant number of them rated their interactions with fellow students in the online classroom higher than in their f2f courses: “The amount of interaction I had with classmates in this course compared to f2f courses”:

Lower: 20.7% Much lower: 6.9%

Higher: 24.1% Much higher 22.4%

About the same: 25.9% 46.5% reported having higher or much higher interaction with their peers while 25.9% reported having about the same amount of contact. Thus, 72.4% of the students perceived the amount of online interactions as either higher or the same as in f2f classes. Only 27.6% reported having lower or much lower interaction with their peers. As was the case with students’ perceptions of their interactions with their instructors, these findings suggest that students want more opportunities to interact with their peers in both online and f2f classes. In their responses to the open-ended questions on the survey, students frequently expressed appreciation for the discussion board exchanges. Many students stated that of all the course activities, they liked the discussion board exchanges most because they were allowed to express their own opinions and engage with their peers’ opinions. Three main themes emerged across students’ responses about the perceived benefits of online course environments: online interactions introduced them to multiple perspectives; online space allowed them to share opinions more freely without fear of reproach; and online experiences directly benefited their writing. The first theme—access to multiple perspectives–was mentioned most frequently. Since they were required to post their own ideas as well as respond to their peers’, students felt that they were exposed to more perspectives than they could have in a f2f class where time limitations allow only a few students to speak. One student wrote: I enjoyed the discussion boards in which we responded to questions and had discussions about readings. These discussions allowed each person in the class to express their opinion which entails greater involvement from each and every student than a traditional class (it is impossible to achieve this amount of input from EVERY student in a standard classroom environment).

236

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

This comment, which was indicative of many students’ perceptions, emphasizes that students were more engaged in the class because they were given significant opportunities to explore their own thoughts on the subjects under discussion. This type of student-centered focus is consistent with LCE goals and composition pedagogy goals, suggesting that the online environment was helping students achieve these specific goals. The access to multiple views helped some students feel a part of a community—both inside and outside of class time/space. Two representative comments are as follows: • “In the online course I was able to better interact with my classmates on a friend level and to get better feedback. I know everyone in my class compared to all my other classes. They are easy to talk to and helped me throughout the course with questions/concerns I had. I think the online course is more interactive than a normal sit down classroom. My normal experience was good but this one was great.” • “The discussion board contributed to my learning by allowing me to connect with other classmates outside of class.” These comments highlight that their discussion boards were much more like the conferences that Bullen (1998) mentioned than the bulletin boards. Because students felt connected to their peers, they believed that they were more open to exploring multiple viewpoints. By pointing out how the online class was different from their f2f class experiences, some students directly attributed this benefit to the unique environment of the online class. The second theme—more freedom to post comments that might be viewed as controversial—is closely tied to the first one. Students frequently reported that they were more likely to write what they really believed than they were to say it in a f2f class: • “Reading other people’s posts made it easier to hold discussions and to understand everyone’s opinions because they were not afraid to write them down.” • “Having an online discussion board allows all students to respond to what they think without being as afraid of what others will think of their responses. Because of this, you get to know what people believe on certain topics better. • “I felt that this was a better experience than the other classes I have taken. It is easier for me to communicate on a discussion board than face to face. Also, during peer reviewing and things of that nature, it is easier to be critical when you aren’t talking directly to the person. I loved taking this class.” • “The discussion boards also take away part of the humanistic aspect of an argument which I feel is a very positive thing because it allows students to voice their true opinion without the repercussions of emotion.” (Italics mine) While each student gave differing reasons, all of them referred to the particular ways the discussion boards encouraged them to participate in a different, more “authentic” way. Interestingly enough, these responses suggest that the lack of visual cues actually benefited their exchanges. Because some of the usual social cues were removed from the discussions, students felt that they were able to be more “real.” The physical distancing, then, actually helped them connect to their peers through reading their “true” expressions of thoughts and beliefs. This finding complexifies our understanding of the importance of presence in online classes. Perhaps f2f visual cues are not as important to learning as students once perceived them to be.

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

237

In the third theme, students acknowledged that the opportunities for peer interaction directly benefited their writing. Comments in this category illustrate that students made explicit connections between the discussions with their peers and their own learning in the course. Through reading their peers’ postings, students felt they received help with idea generation, revision, and general clarification of course expectations: • “Being able to go online and view what other students were doing helped me get my ideas flowing.” (idea generation) • “The discussion board significantly contributed to my learning because it allowed posting of assignments in a group setting as well as receiving peer reviews.” (revision) • “The threaded discussions did help. They helped a lot because you could see what your peers were submitting which gave you a direction.” (idea generation/clarification) • “Being able to discuss the assignments with other students through the discussion board definitely contributed to my learning. It was very useful to talk with other students about their difficulties and help each other whenever necessary.” (clarification) These representative comments show that students saw the ways that the discussion boards could directly impact their writing. Based on these comments, we could surmise that students had created learning communities, if we agree with Alfred Rovai (2002) that a group that embodies a “culture of learning is one in” which everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding. Read through this lens, the students’ comments suggest that they perceived themselves to be part of such a community, one that is focused on similar curricular goals, and that they valued the ways the other community members (i.e. students) helped them move toward their individual writing goals. However, this interpretation is muddied by students’ responses to fixed-answer questions in the survey. When asked in two questions to reflect on the extent to which these interactions were important to their learning, students reported that their peers’ feedback was not necessarily important: “How important was feedback from classmates on discussion board?”

Very important: 1.7% Somewhat important: 20.7% Not very important: 27.6% Not at all important: 50% 77.6% of them reported that they did not see classmates’ feedback as important (not very important, not at all important) while only 22.4% (somewhat important, very important) thought it was useful. Furthermore, students did not view interactions with their peers in email as important to their learning either: “How important was feedback from your classmates in email”:

Very important: 1.7% Important: 6.9% Somewhat important: 8.6% Not very important: 34.5% Not at all Important: 25.9% Did not use: 22.4% Almost a quarter of the students did not even use that technology to engage with their peers and of those that did, 60.4% did not see those interactions as important to their learning (not very important, not at all important). Only 17.2% rated that interaction as important (very

238

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

important, important, or somewhat important). If, as the responses to open-ended questions suggest, students felt their peers’ comments helped them, then why did they still insist in fairly large numbers that the feedback was, ultimately, not important? To answer this question, it is important to consider the kinds of interactions students had in the discussion boards. Overwhelmingly, students reported that the primary uses of the discussion boards were (1) to discuss readings by instructor-initiated prompts as guides and (2) to give and receive feedback on their writing. Rovai (2002) pointed to two kinds of interactions that dominate online courses: task-driven or socio-emotional: “Task driven interaction is directed toward the completion of assigned tasks while socio-emotional-driven interaction is directed toward relationships among learners. Task-driven interaction is under the direct control of the instructor and often takes the form of responses to instructor-generated discussion topics and peer assessments” (n.p.). According to this classification system, all the interactions students reported were task-driven in that the primary goal for the exchange was to complete an instructor-initiated task that would also be evaluated by the instructor. While the students valued the connection to their peers in the discussion board, their “reading” of the classroom perhaps made it clear to them that the socio-emotional was not valued in the kinds of assignments given nor the grading criteria used by the instructor. While they may have been engaged in “a collective effort of understanding” (Rovai, 2002, n.p.), the learners were not in charge of defining those goals; instead they were working to understand the goals the instructors had defined for them. Since this was the case, students perhaps still recognized that the instructor’s opinion/evaluation of their work was what counted, not their peers’. Students are, after all, astute readers of the classroom of the space and the expectations that educational institutions and teachers have of them. However, because the students’ responses to the open-ended questions reflected positively on the importance of peer interactions, we cannot simply assert that the teacher is in control and therefore the students care only about her/his opinion. Kate Kiefer (2006) argued that factors such as “the physical environment, the intellectual environment, and the specific activities as well as the demeanor, behavior, and expectations of each of the class participants” affects classroom dynamics (p. 136). Based on the results from my study, it is clear that specific features that are unique to the online environment are impacting the class environment even as traditional institutional factors shape students’ expectations and definitions. Perhaps what is most evident from their mixed responses is that the online classroom is an environment in transition, one that, while familiar in some ways, is asking students (and teachers) to challenge their assumptions about learning; yet all of this is taking place within an educational system that has not changed its ideological approaches to education: Teachers give assignments, students complete them, and teachers grade them.

6. Conclusions So, what does this study say about the degree to which our uses of online technologies are helping us achieve LCE goals, particularly in first-year composition courses? Overall, it seems that courseware like Blackboard can be well suited to achieving learning outcomes of writing courses. The courses described in my survey used the discussion board feature extensively,

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

239

suggesting that the instructors valued the kinds of interaction that online environments make possible. Some of the students’ responses to the open-ended questions emphasized that the discussion boards fit well with the goals of a writing class because they were required to write their ideas rather than speak them as they would in a f2f course. Pointing to the written nature of discussion board posts, Judith Lapadat (2002) argued that “asynchronous conferences create a high premium on good writing, and as participants strive to put their thoughts into writing clearly, they will take their time, reflect, and consider their audience’s perspective, and use critical and higher order thinking skills” (p. 12). Written discussion board exchanges provide students with a good opportunity to craft their thinking within dialogic exchanges rather than in isolation, which help students better envision an audience for whom they are writing. The presence of an immediate audience seems to encourage students to pay careful attention to writing in a way that addresses audience issues—which is, after all, a core part of the WPA Outcomes Statement. Presenting their opinions and interpretations for an immediate audience can also help students write their way into new insights and ways of seeing. In such discussions, students become co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive receivers of predetermined truths. If course assignments are developed through the lens of LCE principles, they provide “the benefits of writing oneself into understanding as well as a social milieu that elicits thoughtful contributions” (Lapadat, 2002, p. 13). Students in my study reported that the discussion board assignments required them to use writing not only to express their thoughts but to actually help them construct those thoughts. Their responses suggest that many of the courses in my study used the discussion boards in ways that supported the LCE principle of active learning, a principle based on an assertion that “learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorizing prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987, p. 1). In their responses to the open-ended questions, students emphasized that they were required to take more responsibility for their learning and to connect the course material to their own lives. Further, students responded positively and enthusiastically about the interactions they had with their peers in particular and, to an extent, with their instructors because they were engaged in what Lapadat called “multidirectional conversations,” types of discussions that contrast “with the teacher-dominated, unidirectional discourse of traditional classrooms” (2002, p. 11). However, in their responses to the closed-answer questions, students did not directly connect those exchanges to their learning in the course. A majority of students reported that the feedback they received from their classmates both in the discussion boards and on e-mail was not important to their learning. Even though they reported that they liked the interactions with their peers, the students in my study insisted that the teacher’s feedback was what was most important to their learning. Since they rated their instructor’s feedback as most important, it is hardly surprising that they were dissatisfied with the kinds of feedback and the immediacy of their instructor’s feedback. The contradictions between their responses to the open-ended questions and the closed-answer questions suggest that although students indeed participating with their peers in “multidirectional written conversations”, they still judged the online environment through their experiences with “the teacher-dominated, unidirectional discourse of traditional

240

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

classrooms” (Lapadat, 2002, p. 11). The interaction was present; students’ understanding of its significance was not. These findings suggest that the problem is not so much in lack of interactions, but lack of understanding of the purpose for the discussions. A key part of the solution, then, lies with the instructor. Yes, the course must have a clear purpose. But an instructor cannot stop there; s/he must take the next step to make that purpose explicit through meta-commentary on both the course design and course assignments. This kind of commentary can help teachers challenge their own conceptions of the best roles for teachers and students and the commentary can help students become aware of and questions the limits of their prior understandings. In order for LCE outcomes to be achieved in online classes, both students and teachers must question “the long established conceptual framework that we have built in the context of conversational, face-to-face teaching” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001 p. 14). The possibilities for unique interactions in online courses are limited when they continue to be judged through the lens of f2f experiences that value the instructor’s traditional role over all other productive roles. Meta-commentary about course design and assignments can, thus, realize more of these potentials. When creating online courses, then, the instructor must make her/his reasoning behind the course design clear—in other words, make visible the ways in which the course design itself challenges traditional conceptions of student-teacher interactions. Terry Anderson et al. (2001) argued that since “much of the learned expectation of classroom norms is not available for either or student or teacher use [in an online class]. The teacher is forced to be more explicit and transparent in their planning process” (p. 6). To help students learn to use the new online spaces, “the teacher’s task is to create a narrative path through the mediated instruction and activity set such that students are aware of the explicit and implicit learning goals and activities in which they participate. Macrolevel comments about course process and content are thus an important motivation and orientation component” of course design (p. 6). In addition to meta-commentary about course design, instructors must also provide metacommentary about the purpose of the assignments and the learning principles upon which they are based. Teachers need to make sure that the writing assignments they include in the online class encourage the kind of thoughtful, written interactions that the online course environment allows for. Discussion board assignments should “include aspects such as incorporating challenging and engaging content, providing a task structure that promotes problem-solving and collaboration within the classroom or online community and being aware of and taking steps to moderate the instructor’s privileged position of power” (Lapadat, 2002, p. 13). Equally as important as clear assignments is the instructor’s explication of the underlying purposes of the assignments and the connection between the discussion board assignments and the paper assignments that are the hallmark of first-year writing courses. As the students’ responses to my survey showed, students did not necessarily understand the underlying purpose for or connections between the assignments. And this clarity is crucial if students are to fully realize the benefits of online discussions to their learning in the course. It might seem odd for me to focus so heavily upon the teacher’s role in online classrooms when my theoretical framework is LCE principles and my study focused on students’ perceptions of learning. Contrary to some definitions of learner-centered classrooms, though, LCE goals do not erase the need for the instructor’s presence. While the metaphor of teacher as

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

241

“facilitator” has been used extensively to describe the new role of the teacher, this “facilitator” vision can actually work against LCE principles if instructors determine this to mean that they are a nonparticipant or peer participant. As Anderson et al. (2001) pointed out, the instructor continues to play a significant role in online course environments because the “instructor must be able to set and communicate the intellectual climate of the course or seminar, and model the qualities of a scholar” (p. 8). Arguing for the importance of the “apprenticeship model,” Anderson, et al insisted that a key feature of a successful online class is “the expert of more skilled peer who scaffolds a novice’s learning.” Since “a widely documented problem in computer conferencing is the difficulty of focusing and refining discussion so that conversation progresses beyond information sharing to knowledge construction and especially application and integration” (p. 8), too little engagement in the discussion boards on the instructor’s part can hinder students’ understanding. It is crucial for instructors to “provide focus to the discussion by directing attention to particular concepts or information that is necessary to frame or pursue knowledge growth” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 9). Therefore, the teacher must balance peer-directed discussion boards with direct instruction. However, this direct instruction is not the same thing as the repackaging of lecture style courses that Lapadat (2002) warned against; instead, as Anderson et al. (2001) pointed out, direction instruction means that the “subject matter expert is expected to provide direct instruction by interjecting comments, referring students to information resources, and organizing activities that allow the students to construct the content in their own minds and personal contexts” (pp. 8–9). When read through this theoretical lens, students’ mixed responses to my survey seem well founded and representative of the transitional point at which we now find ourselves. Students who responded to my survey were not clear about the purpose for the discussion assignments. They wanted more direct instruction but they did not want traditional lecture, suggesting that students were beginning to adopt LCE principles. They acknowledged that the online environment was different from the f2f one but they still had expectations of that space that were not being realized. If we continue to offer online and hybrid courses (as I’m sure ASU and universities across the country no doubt will), we must think carefully about what is actually being accomplished—what outcomes are being achieved. If online education is encouraging students to have higher expectations for their learning, then our uses of the courseware frameworks are beneficial. If, however, students rely more heavily on the instructor because 1) the online environment is preset by her/him in ways that even most f2f classes are not and 2) the connections between the course material and students’ learning are not clear, then our uses of online technologies are actually taking us backwards—away from the LCE goals we wish to advance in our classrooms. If, as the students’ responses in my survey suggest, we are at a transition point, then it is crucial for us to carefully analyze how our uses of those technologies limit/enhance students’ engagement with the course material, with us, and, perhaps most importantly, with their peers. The space of the online environment allows us to do these things, even, perhaps encourages us to. However, our basic assumptions about the classroom (even in its digitized form) and the institutional constraints continue to limit us and the possibilities—unless we critically engage students’ voices in our evaluations of the courses and make them part of the construction of the courses. Doing so would be an excellent use of the transitional time that students in my study identified.

242

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

Patricia Webb Boyd is an associate professor at Arizona State University in Rhetoric and Composition. In addition to technology studies, her research interests include sustainability/ecocomposition and gendered communication.

References Achtmeier, Sue, Morris, Libby, & Finnegan, Catherine. (2003). Considerations for developing evaluations of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 1–13. Anderson, Barbara. (2006). Writing power into online discussion. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 108–124. Anderson, Terry, Rourke, Liam, Garrison, D. Randy, & Archer, Walter. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1– 16. Alexander, Shirley, & Boud, David. (2001). Learners still learn from experience when online. In John Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 3–15). London: Kogan Page. Bullen, Mark. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2) [Retrieved on June 6, 2006 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html] Chickering, Arthur, & Gamson, Zelda. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 3–7. Daugherty, Martha, & Funke, Barbara. (1998). University faculty and student perceptions of web-based instruction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1) [Retrieved on June 6, 2006 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/ vol13.1/daugherty.html] Johnson, Scott, Aragon, Steven, Shaik, Najmuddin, & Palma-Rivas, Nilda. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29–49. Kiefer, Kate. (2006). Complexity, class dynamics, and distance learning. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 125–138. Lapadat, Judith. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4), 1–21. Mallinen, Sisko. (2001). Teacher effectiveness and online learning. In John. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 139–149). London: Kogan Page. Meyer, Katrina. (2003). Face to face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65. Moran, Charles. (1999). Access: The A-Word in Technology Studies. In Gail Hawisher (Ed.) Passions, Pedagogies, and Twenty-First Century Technologies (pp. 205–20). Logan, UT: Utah State P. O’Reilly, Mary, & Newton, Diane. (2002). Interaction online: Above and beyond requirements of assessment. Australian Journal of Technology, 18(1), 461–470. Picciano, Anthony. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–39. Richardson, Jennifer, & Swan, Karen. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1). Rovai, Alfred. (2002). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1). Stephenson, John. (2001). Learner-managed learning—An emerging pedagogy for learning online. In John Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 219–224). London: Kogan Page.

P. Webb Boyd / Computers and Composition 25 (2008) 224–243

243

Swan, Karen. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloane Center for Online Education. Whitlock, Quentin. (2001). Course design for online learning—What’s gone wrong? In John Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 182–194). London: Kogan Page.