Online Writing
as a Form of Electronic
Communication
in a Second Year Biology Course
Michael K. Barbour
Faculty of Education,
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Michael A.J. Collins
Department of Biology,
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Abstract - Over the past decade, the
proliferation of technology in the realm of teaching has occurred at a
phenomenal rate. From the smallest
integration of technology into the classroom to entire courses being taught in
an online environment, the use of computers by students and teachers has
continued to increase. To date, most of
the available research has attempted to answer the question as to whether or
not the use of technology is beneficial to student learning.
This paper considers student
use of an online discussion forum in a second year Biology course and how that
participation may be an indicator of increased student success in the
course. However, unlike most of the
previous research in this area, the authors will also address the question of
why increased participation in online discussion forum may lead to increased
student success in the course.
The authors discuss how
participation in the online discussion forum is a form of public writing in
which the students need to have a fair understanding of the topic about which
they are writing (not wanting to look "dumb" in the eyes of other
classmates). It is this writing about a
topic with a clear understanding which may increase students' success in the course
and not simply the use of online communications.
During
the 1996 United States presidential campaign, the Democratic team of Bill
Clinton and Al Gore made a number of visionary policy statements about the use
of the Internet by Americans and, more specifically by, American students. They spoke of building a bridge to the
twenty-first century through the use of the Internet and pledged to bring a
computer to each and every student desk in America. Shortly after the campaign in 1997, the popular North American
magazine The Atlantic Monthly
published an article that stated
in 1922, Thomas Edison predicted that ‘the motion picture is destined to revolutionise our educational system and… in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks.’ Twenty three years later, in 1945, William Levenson, the director of Cleveland public schools’ radio station claimed that ‘the time may come when a portable radio receiver will be as common in the classroom as is the blackboard.’ Forty years after that the noted educational psychologist B.F. Skinner, referring to the first days of his ‘teaching machines’ in the later 1950’s and early 1960’s, wrote, ‘I was soon saying that, with the help of teaching machines and programmed instruction, students could learn twice as much in the same time and with the same effort as in a standard classroom.[1]
In hindsight, neither the motion picture, nor the portable radio receiver, nor Skinner’s “teaching machine” have become permanent fixtures in classrooms around the world. Can this quote also be applied to computers? Computers by themselves have not revolutionised the practice of teaching any more than these other technologies have, however, computers have become useful teaching tools, both in support of the traditional classroom and in the growing realm of distance education.
One
area where computers have made a significant impact is in the realm of
computer-mediated communication or electronic messaging. According to Zack (1995), the term
electronic messaging includes "several modes of computer-mediated
communications, including electronic mail, electronic talk or chat, computer
conferences or bulletin boards, and electronic document exchange.”[2] This definition is very broad in its scope
and for the purpose of this study, electronic messaging will be limited to
electronic mail, messages sent to an electronic listserver, and posts to a
web-based discussion forum.
The
courses that were considered in this study were two second year, non-major
Biology courses. The first, Biology
2040 – Modern Biology and Human Society I (Human Biology), was offered in
on-campus lecture, off-campus correspondence and web-based delivery
formats. The second course, Biology
2041 – Modern Biology and Human Society II (Environmental Science), was only
offered in on-campus lecture and off-campus correspondence formats.
This
particular study was developed from three earlier studies conducted by Collins
in 1995, 1996 and 1997. In the 1995
study, Collins (1995) found that the electronic bulletin board had fostered
"student-student interaction and student-professor interaction… of course
student-professor interactions through computer conferencing will never be a
total replacement for face to face interactions, but computer conferencing does
provide another channel for such communication." Collins also stated that "the student responses [from a
student questionnaire] seem to suggest that even students who would normally be
reluctant to ask questions in class or comment on issues will do so through
computer conferencing."[3] This observation is similar to Schwalm's
assertion that even formerly silent students can become addicted to
communication when the latter is electronic.[4]
As
a 1996 follow-up to that initial study, Collins (1998) again found the electronic
bulletin board had fostered both student-student interaction and
student-professor interaction. He also
found students "noted that the round-the-clock availability of the system
allowed them to ask questions, and often receive answers, at any time of day
and night rather than just being restricted to class time or contacting the
professor." This conclusion
supported an earlier observation by Cavalier (1992) that the electronic
bulletin board allowed students "reflect and compose at their own pace and
convenience, resulting in round-the-clock dialogues of surprising depth and
insight."[5] Collins also reported that "one of the students commented
that joining in discussions was an incentive to take interest in the course
overall, and that this interest also led to better study habits." Collins speculated that this comment may
indicate "that becoming more actively involved in a peripheral activity
such as discussion leads to becoming more involved with the course as a whole
and, therefore, to better student learning."[6]
Unlike
his 1995 and 1996 studies, which had an on-campus lecture format class use an
electronic bulletin board, in 1997 Collins conducted a comparison of students'
final scores in three versions of the same course over a period of four semesters. Collins (2000a) found "that the
[off-campus] correspondence section achieved the higher mean final scores in
three of the four semesters while the Web course achieved the higher mean score
in only one semester." He
continued by stating that "the data suggests that at best there is little
difference between the final mean score, and at worse that the students in the
Web sections do not achieve quite as high overall mean scores as those in the
correspondence sections."[7] This finding appeared to contradict those of
Wideman and Owston (1999), who reported that "on the whole students in
Internet and in-class courses scored significantly higher than their
counterparts in correspondence courses, although no significant difference was
found between Internet and in-class students."[8]
These
three studies presented a number of questions which required further
consideration. This further
consideration was the basis of the current study. This study considers the students use of electronic mail,
messages sent to an electronic listserver, and posts to a web-based discussion
forum in two different courses over a three year or nine semester period. These two courses, Biology 2040 which was
offered in on-campus lecture, off-campus correspondence and web-based delivery
formats and, Biology 2041 which was only offered in on-campus lecture and
off-campus correspondence formats, were offered a total of twenty-two times
during this period.
During
the period 1997 to 1999, student use of electronic messaging, as defined above,
was collected. An analysis of these
data included time of day used, level of use, type of communications, and
relationship between the use of electronic messaging and the final course
grades of the students.
Characteristics
of Electronic Messaging
There
are four characteristics of electronic messaging that were considered in this
study: time of day used; time in semester used; content analysis; and level of
participation. As has been stated
earlier, Cavalier (1992) described a "round-the-clock" discussion
that would occur among his students in their use of an electronic bulletin
board. Table 1 illustrates the time of
day that different types of electronic messaging were used in this study.
Table 1 - Time of day electronic messaging used
|
Type of electronic messaging |
12:01am-4:00am |
4:01am-8:00am |
8:01am-12:00pm |
12:01pm-4:00pm |
4:01pm-8:00pm |
8:01pm-12:00am |
|
Electronic mail |
48 |
22 |
154 |
311 |
202 |
147 |
|
Listserver |
|
|
6 |
5 |
4 |
|
|
Web forum |
8 |
|
16 |
46 |
31 |
30 |
|
Total |
56 (5%) |
22 (2%) |
176 (17%) |
362 (35%) |
237 (23%) |
177 (17%) |
As in indicated in Table 1, just over 50% of all
messages were posted during the traditional university classroom time periods
(e.g., 8:00am-12:00 and 12:00pm to 4:00) and another 25% of all messages were
posted during non-traditional university classroom time period (e.g., 4:00pm to
8:00). This would mean that
approximately 25% or one in every four messages were posted during time when
universities typically do not hold classes at all (e.g., 8:00pm-12:00, 12:00am
to 4:00 and 4:00am to 8:00).
The
second characteristic that was considered in this study was at what point in
the semester did students make use of electronic messaging. At the beginning of the study, it was
hypothesised that electronic messaging would be more frequent around the time tests
were given or assignments due. However,
as Table 2 illustrates, that was not the case.
Table 2 - Time in semester when students used electronic messaging
|
Time in semester |
Electronic mail |
Listserver |
Web forum |
Total |
|
Before semester began |
37 |
|
1 |
38 (3%) |
|
Week 1 |
43 |
|
5 |
48 (5%) |
|
Week 2 |
47 |
|
16 |
63 (6%) |
|
Week 3 |
42 |
6 |
12 |
60 (6%) |
|
Week 4 |
45 |
8 |
10 |
63 (6%) |
|
Week 5 |
45 |
2 |
8 |
55 (5%) |
|
Week 6 |
46 |
|
3 |
49 (5%) |
|
Week 7 |
58 |
|
9 |
67 (7%) |
|
Week 8 |
37 |
|
8 |
45 (5%) |
|
Week 9 |
57 |
|
11 |
68 (7%) |
|
Week 10 |
81 |
|
12 |
93 (9%) |
|
Week 11 |
80 |
|
5 |
85 (8%) |
|
Week 12 |
64 |
|
15 |
79 (8%) |
|
Week 13 |
111 |
|
5 |
116 (11%) |
|
Week 14 |
55 |
|
9 |
64 (6%) |
|
After semester concluded |
27 |
|
|
27 (3%) |
As Table 2 indicates, the use of electronic
messaging throughout the 14 week semester was relatively equally distributed,
with slightly more usage towards the end of the semester.
The
third characteristic that this study considered was a content analysis of the
students' use of electronic messaging. Tao, Montgomery and Pickle article
suggests "if a previous model has been adopted, relevant literature should
be fully presented to justify one's choice of categories."[9] In Collins (1998), the following categories were used:
· Discussion topics
· Assignments
· Access to the system
· Announcements
· Course content inquiries/responses
· Course-related inquiries/responses
· Comments
· Other[10]
However, these categories were created for messages
posted to a text-based, DEC-Notes software platform. Due to the differences between this system and the forms of
electronic messaging being considered by this study, it was decided to modify
these categories slightly.
· approval of assignments topics
· questions of style and format
· scheduling of class assignments
· content covered by specific tests and/or exams
· scheduling of tests and/or exams
· evaluation and/or performance on tests and/or exams
· questions and/or comments about the technology not working
· questions and/or comments about how to use the technology
· questions and/or comments about when things will be added to the WWW site or the web forum
· specific questions and/or comments about the material that is being covered
· questions and/or comments of clarification of material that is being covered
· questions and/or comments regarding meeting with the professor
· questions and/or comments about grade distribution
· questions and/or comments about registration
Based upon these new categories, Table 3 illustrates
the content analysis performed on the students' use of electronic messaging.
Table 3 - Content analysis of electronic messaging
|
Type of electronic messaging |
Discussion |
Assignments |
Test/Exams |
System Related |
Course Content |
Administrative |
Other |
|
Electronic mail |
|
179 |
308 |
52 |
62 |
188 |
92 |
|
Listserver |
|
4 |
2 |
|
|
4 |
6 |
|
Web forum |
24 |
5 |
55 |
2 |
30 |
13 |
40 |
|
Total |
24 (2%) |
188 (18%) |
365 (34%) |
54 (5%) |
92 (9%) |
205 (19%) |
138 (13%) |
As is indicated in Table 3, the main use of
electronic messaging was for messages related to tests and exams. Student also made significant use of
electronic messaging for messages about assignments and messages of an
administrative nature.
The
fourth characteristic of electronic messaging that was considered in this study
was the level of participation by students with each of the classes. Table 4 illustrates the percentage of
students who made use of some form of electronic messaging on a class by class
basis over the three year period.
Table 4 - Student participation by semester by course and delivery format
|
Semester |
2040 On Campus |
2040 Correspondence |
2040 Web |
2041 On Campus |
2041 Correspondence |
|
Winter 97 |
20% |
5% |
67% |
|
|
|
Spring 97 |
|
5% |
20% |
|
|
|
Fall 97 |
20% |
17% |
25% |
|
|
|
Winter 98 |
|
|
|
13% |
15% |
|
Spring 98 |
|
10% |
|
|
8% |
|
Fall 98 |
23% |
|
|
|
9% |
|
Winter 99 |
|
5% |
63% |
21% |
|
|
Spring 99 |
|
10% |
88% |
|
8% |
|
Fall 99 |
28% |
|
|
|
17% |
As the tables indicates, the students in the
web-based version were much more likely to make use of electronic messaging
than students in the on campus or correspondence versions. Since students who enroll for web-based
courses have to be familiar with computer, the Internet, and electronic
messaging as a prerequisite for enrollment, it is not surprising that they
would be more comfortable with using electronic messaging than the students in
the non-web classes. While the use of
electronic messaging was lower in the on campus classes, its use in the
off-campus correspondence classes was even lower. This was surprising given the fact that distance education
students' main method of communication with the instructor should be through
electronic messaging, while on-campus students had access to the instructor in
both the classroom and in his office.[11]
Student
Achievement and Electronic Messaging Usage
There
are two aspects of student achievement that were considered by this study. The first was a follow-up comparison from
Collins 1997 study. As discussed
earlier, bucking the previous trend, Collins found that students in off-campus
correspondence had a higher class average than students in web-based
classes. The second was a consideration
of relationship between student use of electronic messaging and that student's
final mark.
Over
a period of three years, this study found similar results as Collins did in
1997. Table 5 illustrates these
findings on a class by class basis.
Table 5 - Class average by semester by course and delivery format
|
Semester |
2040 On Campus |
2040 Correspondence |
2040 Web |
2041 On Campus |
2041 Correspondence |
|
Winter 97 |
77.1% |
75.2% |
73.1% |
|
|
|
Spring 97 |
|
76.0% |
74.8% |
|
|
|
Fall 97 |
77.0% |
78.7% |
75.2% |
|
|
|
Winter 98 |
|
|
|
78.2% |
83.5% |
|
Spring 98 |
|
72.2% |
|
|
82.9% |
|
Fall 98 |
75.7% |
|
|
|
84.4% |
|
Winter 99 |
|
79.5% |
73.4% |
76.3% |
|
|
Spring 99 |
|
74.5% |
63.8% |
|
76.6% |
|
Fall 99 |
76.5% |
|
|
|
84.4% |
|
Average |
76.6% |
76.0% |
72.1% |
77.3% |
82.4% |
As is indicated by this table, in the Biology 2040
course there was little difference between the on-campus lecture format and the
off-campus correspondence format.
However, both of these delivery formats had a higher average than the
web-based class. In the case of the
Biology 2041, the off-campus correspondence class had a higher average than the
on-campus lecture format.
These
initial findings point to the notion that students in off-campus correspondence
classes perform better than students in on-campus lecture classes, who perform
better than students in web-based classes.
However, these findings are still preliminary and more research is
needed to substantiate the above notion.
In
Collins (2000b), the author found that in the web-based version of Biology 2040
during the Spring 1996 semester, there seemed "to be a relationship
between the level of web forum use and final course scores." More specifically, Collins found
that very frequent users achieved an 'A' for the course while frequent users achieved 'B's. It is interesting to note that those achieving 'C's and 'D's in the course were either infrequent users or did not post notes to the forum at all. None of the three students failing the course posted notes. There is, therefore, a relationship between web forum use and final course scores with very frequent users achieving higher marks, while students not using the web forum are more likely to fail.[12]
These results were similar to ones found in this
study.
Using
the web-based version of Biology 2040 from the Spring 1999 semester, this study
considered the relationship between the students use of the web forum and their
final course scores. This consideration
is illustrated in Table 6.
Table 6 - Frequency of use of the web forum and final letter grade
|
Course grade |
||||
|
Level of use |
A |
B |
C |
D |
F |
|
Very frequent |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Frequent |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Infrequent |
18 |
10 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
None |
21 |
17 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
|
Totals |
42 |
29 |
11 |
3 |
6 |
Unlike the relationship between the letter grade
achieved and the level of electronic mail use, which is discussed in Collins
and Barbour (2001), this table indicates a clearer relationship.
[Table 6] shows that the relationship between the letter grade achieved and the level of web forum use is even clearer than for e-mail use. Only 'A's were very frequent users, and only 'A's and 'B's were frequent users. Only about one third of 'C's, 'D's and 'F's were infrequent users while two-thirds made no use of web forum. Students achieving an 'A' in the course were much more likely to be web forum users (21 of 42) than 'B's (12 of 29), who, in turn were more likely to be users than 'C's, 'D's, and 'F's (only 7 of 20).[13]
Both this study and Collins (2000b) lend credit to
the notion that students who participate in online discussion forums have a
greater chance of success in the course than students who do not participate.
This
notion may be explained by two different areas of research. Over a decade ago, Chickering and Gamson
(1987) put forward the concept that interaction is a key mechanism in enhancing
learning.[14] This concept could be applied to this study
if one were to include electronic messaging as an interaction. However, a second area of research may prove
a greater relationship. There is a
growing body of research that indicates that students who write about their
subject learn that subject better. One
such piece of research is Moore (1993), who has shown the connection between
writing in Biology and higher course scores as others have demonstrated for
other subject areas.[15]
In
Collins and Barbour (2001), they speculate while e-mail messages are often
short messages about non-content queries which are 'private' and only for the
instructor's eyes, postings to the web forum are 'public' and open to the
scrutiny of all class members. Students
are more likely to be careful and deliberate about what they write on the web
forum because they are for public consumption.[16]
Conclusion
There
are numerous aspects of electronic messaging, many of which have been touched
on by this study. However, it should be
noted that this is still a new field of research which is continuing to grow
and as more and better data becomes available, many of the findings from this
study will be expanded upon and even proved or disproved.
Selected
Bibliography
Cavalier,
R. "Course Processing and the Electronic AGORA: Redesigning the
classroom," EDUCOM Review 27,
no. 2 (1992), 32-37.
Chickering,
A. & Gamson, Z. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education," American Association
Higher Education Bulletin, 3-7 (1987).
Collins,
M. "Using Electronic Bulletin Boards with College Biology Classes," The American Biology Teacher 57, no. 5
(1995), 188-189.
Collins,
M. "The Use of Email and Electronic Bulletin Boards in College-Level
Biology," Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching 17, no. 1 (1998), 75-94.
Collins,
M. (2000a), "Comparing Web, Correspondence and Lecture Versions of a
Second-Year Non-Major Biology Course," British
Journal of Educational Technology 31, no. 1 (2000), 21-27.
Collins,
M. (2000b), "The Importance of Electronic Communications in Successful
Web-based Courses." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Scuola
Superiore G. Reiss Romoli, L'Aquila, Italy, 2000.
Collins,
M. & Barbour, M. "Some Characteristics of Student use of Electronic
Communications in Second-Year Science Classes." Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Scuola Superiore G. Reiss Romoli, L'Aquila, Italy, 2001.
Moore,
R. "Does Writing About Science Improve Learning About Science?" Journal of College Science Teaching
XXII, no. 4 (1993) 212-217.
Oppenheimer,
T. "The Computer Delusion," The
Atlantic Monthly 280, no. 1 (1997), 45-62.
Schoenfeld,
C. "Electronic Forum Vivifies the Classroom," Academic Leader 9, no. 11 (1993), 1.
Tao,
L., Montgomery, T. & Pickle, M. "Content Analysis in E-mail Research:
A Methodological Review," Inquiries
in Literacy: Theory and Practice. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference
Inc., 1997.
Wideman,
H. & Owston, R. (1999) Internet-Based
Courses at Atkinson College: An Initial Assessment, Toronto, ON: York
University.
Zack,
M. "Using Electronic Messaging to Improve the Quality of
Instruction," Journal of Education
for Business 70, no. 4 (1995), 202-206.
[1] T. Oppenheimer, "The Computer Delusion," The Atlantic Monthly 280, no. 1 (1997), 45.
[2] M. Zack, "Using Electronic Messaging to Improve the Quality of Instruction," Journal of Education for Business 70, no. 4 (1995), 206.
[3] M Collins, "Using Electronic Bulletin Boards with College Biology Classes," The American Biology Teacher 57, no. 5 (1995), 189.
[4] As quoted in: C. Schoenfeld, "Electronic Forum Vivifies the Classroom," Academic Leader 9, no. 11 (1993), 1.
[5] R. Cavalier, "Course Processing and the Electronic AGORA: Redesigning the classroom," EDUCOM Review 27, no. 2 (1992), 34-35.
[6] M. Collins, "The Use of Email and Electronic Bulletin Boards in College-Level Biology," Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 17, no. 1 (1998), 86.
[7] M. Collins, "Comparing Web, Correspondence and Lecture Versions of a Second-Year Non-Major Biology Course," British Journal of Educational Technology 31, no. 1 (2000), 22-23.
[8] H. Wideman and R. Owston, (1999) Internet-Based Courses at Atkinson College: An Initial Assessment, Toronto, ON: York University, 2.
[9] L. Tao, T. Montgomery and M. Pickle, "Content Analysis in E-mail Research: A Methodological Review," in Inquiries in Literacy: Theory and Practice (Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference Inc., 1997), 480.
[10] Supra Note 6, 81.
[11] M. Collins & M. Barbour, "Some Characteristics of Student use of Electronic Communications in Second-Year Science Classes" (a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Scuola Superiore G. Reiss Romoli, L'Aquila, Italy, 2001). p. 4.
[12] M. Collins, "The Importance of Electronic Communications in Successful Web-based Courses" (a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Scuola Superiore G. Reiss Romoli, L'Aquila, Italy, 2000). p. 7.
[13] Supra. Note 11, p. 7.
[14] A. Chickering & Z. Gamson, "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education," American Association Higher Education Bulletin (1987).
[15] R. Moore, "Does Writing About Science Improve Learning About Science?" Journal of College Science Teaching XXII, no. 4 (1993).
[16] Supra. Note 11, p. 8.