Ross F. Collins*
Using the Web for Class Discussions: APilot Study
Volume 10, 1997
Introduction
Many teachers will remember (as very young children, of course) the introduction
of the filmstrip in the classroom in the early 60s. Touted as a technical revolution
in learning, educators scrambled to secure projectors and good instructional
presentations.
A few years passed, and the excitement ebbed. Filmstrips didn’t quite disappear,
but they became a somewhat staid tool for teachers, not much more exciting than
the blackboard.
Is the Web the filmstrip of the 90s? We can’t be sure yet. Internet’s
World Wide Web is so new to education it hardly existed even 24 months ago.
Today the technology is part of nearly every educator’s discussion, and
the scramble now is to work up a class-based Home Page, assign Web-based research
or papers, or teach actual Web-page development.
To find out just how effective these new ideas will become in the next millennium’s
classroom, it’s wise to start with some test projects. Pilot projects involving
actual classes can help us test the technology for pitfalls, and help us learn
how to best apply it to specific courses, such as those in communication. I
try every fall to designate classes for a pilot project involving new technology,
and keep watch over the results. This means producing class surveys and other
materials. As a pilot project for fall semester 1996, I chose as one goal the
concept of a Web-based discussion group.
The Project
On-line discussion groups are not so new, but those based on the ease of Web
technology haven’t been around long. Last fall North Dakota State University
subscribed as a trial to discussion group software called BigMouth Lion, one
of several Web-based discussion group packages available. Students could log
onto this discussion group, scroll to classes and topics set up as file folders,
keyboard a comment, edit that comment, and post it to the folder. They even
had the opportunity to show their mood with smiley faces, scowley faces, or
other tiny icons.
I chose this discussion group option for two classes. Understanding Media, MCOM
112, is a relatively large class (77 students) generally interested in a broad
survey of the mass media. About two thirds are mass communication majors, and
the vast majority are freshmen and sophomores. Mass Media Ethics, MCOM 431/631,
is a somewhat smaller class (41 students) of mostly juniors and seniors, nearly
all of them mass communication majors. One graduate student also registered
for the class.
This gave me a good cross-section of students at both upper and lower levels
of instruction, and a fairly large sample for more useful study results. (Graduate
representation, obviously, was too low to measure in this case.) All students
were assumed to know nothing about Internet Web-based techniques, and were given
a handout describing basic Web-knowledge and ways to get onto the class discussion
group page. (See a sample in the appendix below.) I also gave a 15-minute introduction
to the Web-based discussion page during a lecture early in the semester.
Because I’ve found NDSU students, especially at the freshman/sophomore
levels, to be generally reticent in class, I added attractions to tease them
onto the class discussion page. First, to encourage them to at least have a
look, I posted weekly “lecture synopses,” three- to four-paragraph
condensations of the week’s material. These were designed for review, though
students who missed class could at least get an idea from the Web. Sometimes
I ended the synopses with a question to stimulate discussion. In addition, the
younger students were required to take weekly in-class quizzes. Material from
these quizzes became part of larger exams. To encourage quiz review, I added
each quiz (but not the answers) to the discussion page a week or so after it
was graded. Students could review for exams through the discussion group. For
icing, I offered students a few extra credit points for posting comments to
the group. Lastly, I emphasized that the discussion group would be driven primarily
by student comments. I would only rarely add my two cents, usually in answer
to a direct question. I did this to save myself time from repeated log-ins,
but also to encourage students to take ownership of the discussion without the
censoring influence of continual faculty surveillance.
The Survey and Results
Both classes were surveyed a couple weeks before semester’s end. Students
were asked how often they consulted the page, why, whether they posted a comment,
why or why not, and if the discussion group option should be offered again.
Five-selection multiple choice answers were offered; multiple responses were
possible to some of the questions. Students were also invited to comment on
their answers. (Percentages below are rounded to nearest whole.)
In the lower-level (MCOM 112) class, 54 percent completed the survey. In the
upper-level (MCOM 431/631) class, 79 percent completed the survey. At the end
of term I counted the number of students who actually posted comments to the
discussion page. In MCOM 112, 77 total postings represented 29 percent of students
enrolled. In MCOM 431/631, 21 total postings represented 30 percent of students
enrolled.
While the majority of students did not post comments, a majority did report
they looked at the discussion page. About 71 percent of MCOM 112 students reported
looking at least once during the semester, compared with 60 percent of MCOM
431/631 students. Of those, however, only 7 percent and 12 percent looked at
least once a week. Nearly one-third (29 percent) of the younger students didn’t
consult the page at all; 41 percent of the older students did not consult the
page.
Those who did take a look at the page were interested for a variety of reasons.
MCOM 112 students reported primarily (51 percent) that they wanted to review
the lecture synopses; another 29 percent want to see what other students were
posting, 24 percent wanted to add their own comments, and nearly half (43 percent)
thought the extra credit opportunity was worth shooting for. About one fifth
(21 percent) were curious about the new technology. Upper class students found
somewhat similar motivations: 44 percent wanted to review the synopses, 18 percent
wanted to see other students’ comments, 15 percent wanted to add their
own, 32 percent wanted the extra credit, and 15 percent were curious about the
technology. (10 percent and 5 percent respectively choose “other”;
multiple choices to this question were possible.)
Of those in the intro-level class who explained why they did not consult the
on-line page, nearly half choose “no time”; 10 percent could not understand
system and instructions, and 5 percent could not gain access to a computer.
Some 40 percent chose “other.” In the upper-level class, 58 percent
had no time for the process; 5 percent could not understand the system, but
no one complained of access problems. More than one third (37 percent) answered
“other.”
Concerning satisfaction with the concept of Web-based on-line discussions among
those who did log on at least once, More than one third (38 percent) of the
112 students responded that technological problems made access frustrating;
8 percent said the on-line study material was not useful, and another 8 percent
said the discussions were not useful. Nearly half (46 percent) answered “other.”
The 431/631 students complained of technical problems as well (42 percent) but
another 42 percent said they had no time—in contrast, not one student in
the 112 class who did consult the discussion page cited this as a problem. About
17 percent answered “other.”
Would students like to see a discussion page offered again? Overwhelmingly yes:
95 percent of the 112 students, 97 percent of the 431/631 students.
Written comments on the survey can help us understand the “other”
so often chosen under actual questions. Many students wanted “better instructions”
or said, “Make directions easier to understand.” In fact, more than
one third of the written comments by 112 students expressed frustration with
the system. Several claimed they must be just “computer illiterate.”
Of upper-class students, one fourth complained about the technology.
Other suggestions included “Offer hints on tests to get more participation,
make it mandatory to go on-line.” “Encourage students to use it by
offering different incentives or posting some assignments. Also, pose questions
that people can really debate about, not just ones that lean toward one obvious
answer.” “Have each of group of colleagues go on the Web page and
start a discussion with each other. Then other groups can join in and hopefully
a major discussion will occur.”
A number of students at both levels liked the idea, even if they didn’t
use it: “Even though I did not use it I think it was still helpful to know
that it was there.” “I think it is a really good idea, I just know
many never take the time to figure out how to do it.” “It sounds great.
I wish I would’ve used it.”
Discussion and Conclusions
Students overwhelmingly support the idea of computer-based technology in the
classroom. The findings of this pilot study support findings of other pilot
projects I’ve tried, including e-mail quizzes, and a web-based term paper.
Participation, however, lags behind enthusiasm. Why? Results of this study indicate
the primary reason is lack of time, especially at the upper-class level. Another
common complaint was lack of instruction: students wanted more in-class demonstrations
and perhaps a field trip to the computer center. Students at both the upper
and lower levels offered similar responses in this area and generally to survey
questions, with the exception of usage: beginning students both used the technology
more, and used it more often, than upper-level students. This may reflect the
greater demands on the time of juniors and seniors. It might be assumed that
younger students are more comfortable with computer technology and therefore
more likely to use it, but comments indicating technology struggles were actually
less at the upper levels than at the intro levels.
Not part of the survey but worth noting is the commitment the instructor also
must make to introduce new technology into a class. I came to this study fairly
familiar with Web concepts, but still had to spend some time learning the discussion
group software. In addition, I needed to prepare the handout, and count student
posts at the end to award extra credit. Most time-consuming, however, was the
preparation and posting of lecture synopses, questions and old quizzes. This
alone perhaps consumed a couple hours a week, and the guide, learning curve,
and extra credit tallying two days at least. Of course, after initial material
has been prepared, the time commitments are reduced.
Some student suggestions for improvement were helpful: communication between
a designated colleague could encourage innovative Web-based teamwork. My discussion-stimulating
questions could have been more stimulating; it’s hard to think up questions
that really excite students. In fact, media-related topics most discussed on-line
included music and movie reviews and related topics of pop culture. For those
who worry the system will be misused, not one student posted profanity or otherwise
inappropriate comments. Perhaps because they needed to include their names for
the extra credit.
While I disagree that students ought to be forced to log on to a discussion
group, perhaps I could have made it more appealing by including more assignments
and classroom news, quizzes, or other extra credit opportunities. I could also
have enclosed URLs pointing to other resources. This software offered the opportunity
to include links, though no one tried that. Then, this would have given me as
instructor a greater presence in the group, something I hoped to avoid, and
would have taken more of my time. Also seemingly necessary is at least a couple
hours’ worth of class time to demonstrate the technology.
I’ll likely make this a permanent part of at least my larger, lower-level
class. Students like it. But is it revolutionary? I could have given out the
lecture synopses and old quizzes in the classroom. And on-line discussions weren’t
terribly lively or insightful. So far, the revolution is still incubating.
Appendix: Class Handout, Joining class web-based services
(by Ross Collins, NDSU Department of Communication, Fall 1996)
E-mail: rcollins@badlands.nodak.edu
Web page: http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/wwwinstr/personnel/
rosscollins/rosscollins.html
The Web: Getting Into Netscape
Netscape is one of many “web browsers,” a computer program designed
to find and transmit information from other computers to the one you’re
using. The computers must be linked in an Internet-accessible network, and must
have programs installed which allow them to create “packets” transmittable
over the Internet. SLIP and PPP accounts, available through NDSU, and a modem
let you do this on your home computer through the telephone. Or you can use
a computer on campus.
A number of ways have been devised to transmit information from other computers
to yours, including electronic mail, Gopher, FTP, Telnet, and World Wide Web.
The last one, nicknamed “The Web,” has become most popular because,
one, it’s easy, and two, it can transmit pictures as well as text. It can
also call up other transmitting technologies as necessary to retrieve documents.
Netscape is designed to read information coded using Web protocol, or HyperText
Markup Language (HTML).
Millions of pieces of information are available on the Web, accessed through
“Home Pages.” A Home Page is a sort of master directory for each source,
giving you “links” to other information you may be interested in.
For instance, if you call up my Home Page, you’ll find topics labeled “Resumé,”
“Travel with Ross,” “A collection of class syllabi,” “History
and scholarship,” etc. To see what each contains, you simply click the
little pointing hand on the underlined words. Normally an underlined colored
word on the Web indicates a link, and may occur anywhere in text as well as
on lists. This brings you to the material. To back up, you choose “back”
from the choices at top.
How do you find interesting Home Pages? If you know the URL (Uniform Resource
Locator), you can just choose “Open Location” and type it in.
My home page URL is at the top of this sheet. URL for the NDSU Spectrum’s
new on-line version is: http://spectrum.ndsu.nodak.edu. (Note: the periods at
the end of sentences are not part of URLs.)
Otherwise, you can get directories of information available through Yahoo! (http://Yahoo.com)
or other finding aids. NDSU’s Home Page (http://ndsu.nodak.edu/) has links
to some of these.
Below are specific directions to merge onto the Information Superhighway from
NDSU:
1. Go to a campus cluster site that has computers connected to the network.
PCs (IBM compatible) must have Windows loaded. The windows system is native
to Macintoshes. (If you are using your own computer, ignore this and go to the
next step.)
2. On a PC, from the Program Manager, double-click on the “Comm” icon.
3. In the “Comm” window, double-click on the Netscape icon. (Note
the blue/black “N.”)
Macintosh users: double-click on the Communication icon, and on Netscape icon,
or “NDUS Net Server,” also a Netscape icon.
4. You’re now in Netscape, and ready to call up a Home Page. Some Netscape
programs in the cluster may automatically call up the North Dakota State University
system’s Home Page.
5. To call up a new page, click on the “Open button near the top center
of the Netscape window, or choose “Open Location” from File pull-down
menu.
6. Type the URL into the window. You don’t really need the http:// part;
it just tells Netscape you’re asking for a HyperText Transport Protocol
document, which it assumes anyway. Press Return or Enter.
If all the information of a particular page cannot be displayed on the screen
at one time, use the Netscape window scroll bars to move up and/or down the
page.
If you want to quit loading a Home Page before it’s finished, probably
because you’re working at peak hours and it’s taking forever, click
on the Stop button at upper right.
Exiting Home Page or Netscape
To exit a Home Page, click on the small close box at upper left.
To quit Netscape, go to the File menu and choose Exit.
Joining the class discussion
In addition to class home pages, I’ll set up class discussions using a
new Web-based software called, somewhat whimsically, Big Mouth Lion. These discussion
groups give you the opportunity to address questions to me and to the whole
group at the same time, or to include your own observations. Each week (I hope)
I’ll post a synopsis of that week’s lecture material for you to review,
and ask a question designed to stimulate discussion. You’ll get extra credit
for comments you post to the group, as long as you sign your name to them.
To join:
1. open Netscape, and call up NDSU’s Big Mouth Lion Home Page:
http://www.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu/wwwinstr/tools/conference/
2. Read the introductory information, and log in. You don’t have to use
your name as a log in, but it’s a lot less confusing for me to give you
extra credit if you do.
3. Fill out the form as specified for a new user. Write down your log in handle
so you can quickly join the forum in the future.
4. Preview/submit the information. You can’t submit the info unless you
have the required boxed filled out, and check the “Looks Good” box.
5. Choose: “Go to topic outline.”
6. Scroll down the topics to Understanding Media. Click on “Discussion
Contents” to read other comments, or click on “Expand all comments.”
It’s really pretty easy and intuitive. Add comments by clicking on that
opportunity. The software will even check your spelling and—tee-hee—replace
naughty words with some kind of #@*!! Don’t forget to sign your name if
you want credit!
As you can see, it’s possible to create a new discussion under a topic
heading, or even create a new topic. For this class, however, it’s confusing
if you start a new topic—best to create new discussions or add new comments
under the Understanding Media topic.
Questions?
NDSU’s help desk for sorting out computer problems is on the second floor
of the IACC, or call 231-8685.
* Ross F. Collins is an associate professor of communication at North Dakota State University, Fargo.