BACK ISSUES: Select One: View All --------- | -- 2002 -- | April | -- 2001 -- | Oct/Nov Aug/Sept June/July April/May March Jan/Feb | -- 2000 -- | December Oct/Nov September July/August June May April March February January | -- 1999 -- | December November October September July/August June May April March February January | -- 1998 -- | December November October September July/August June May April March February January | -- 1997 -- | December November

Volume 3 Issue 11December 1999

Electronic Communication: What Do Online Students Think?

A summary of the Field Report compiled by the California Community Colleges Flashlight Project.

Susan Obler
Project Director, The Flashlight Consortium
Rio Hondo College

Overview
The project’s purpose was for students and faculty to assess Web-supported classes (fully and partly online) in the ten participating colleges: Rio Hondo College (Lead College), City College of San Francisco (Northern Host) Cerro Coso College, De Anza College, Irvine Valley College, Santa Rosa Junior College, Rancho Santiago Sierra College, Mira Costa College, West Valley College.

College Teams
In each college, participating faculty (usually 3 per college) received a stipend of $1,000 for attending two workshops, giving students the cross-college survey, conducting their own course-specific assessment, and submitting a final report. The colleges each contributed one researcher to the project. The selection of the faculty came mostly from the college Chief Instructional Officers.

The national Flashlight Project's director, Steve Ehrmann, with Alec Testa of Western Governor’s University, conducted one-day workshops, one north and one south in October 1998, for planning the assessment activities. Dr. Ehrmann’s colleague, Robin Zuniga, conducted one-day north and south workshops in May 1999 for reviewing survey and project results.

A listserv, provided by Dan Mitchell at DeAnza, was used for discussion and announcements.

The Flashlight Student Survey
At the fall workshops, and during the ensuing online conversation, the participants agreed to narrow the focus of the survey to students’ uses and perceptions of electronic communication. We included e-mail, online conferences, chat rooms, and news groups—among students or between faculty and students. We contracted to use items from the Current Student Inventory in the extensive Flashlight Handbook, developed and tested by the national group in Washington. The survey was conducted in mid April for semester courses and in late May for quarter system courses. 710 students were surveyed.

We beta-tested the Flashlight-Silhouette program from Washington State University (WSU); the program allows students to submit responses directly from their class Web site. Gary Brown and his staff returned aggregate data within and across colleges; individual class data went to each faculty participant. Rio Hondo’s Mike Martinez and Peg Collins at WSU solved program glitches quickly and helped faculty remedy problems on their Web site.

Discussion of Findings
The survey findings are preliminary and must be replicated if they are to have substantial credibility. Preliminary indications are, however, that students usually new to classes using electronic communication say they are more likely to actively participate in classes with these tools than in face-to-face classes. They also indicate a greater willingness to ask clarifying questions when they don’t understand something, and they are will more willing to discuss ideas and concepts with others students in the class when using electronic communication.

These students say that e-mail and online discussion has enhanced their relationship to the instructor. They are more likely to receive detailed comments from the instructor more promptly than in a face-to-face course. They are also more likely to tell the instructor that they have a complaint or suggestion than in a face-to-face course.

Electronic communication, however, has its limits. Students indicated they were less likely to discuss academic goals and career plans with their instructor nor were they likely to discuss ideas and concepts taught in the course with their instructor. Students seemed to be more autonomous; more willing to search for their own answers to questions rather than rely upon the instructor.

The net result was that classes relying fully or partly on electronic communication generated a great deal of student enthusiasm. Significant majorities said they had put more thought into their comments, were willing to ask awkward questions, spent more time studying and three quarters said they were more confident that they would be able to reach their academic goals. Over 90% said they would recommend both the course and the instructor to other students. Ninety one percent said they would recommend that other students take classes with electronic communication.

Comparing student responses based on whether they had enrolled in fully online or partly online classes suggests that the combination of face to face and electronic communication may be more useful and exciting for more students than the fully online classes. There is not enough data to make a strong case for this yet, but more study may yield some significant differences between the two modes of electronic delivery: fully online and combinations of online and class meetings.

For the full Field Report contact Susan Obler at SObler@rh.cc.ca.us

Survey statistics are available online at http://www.rh.cc.ca.us/projects/flashlight