A web dream team: the seven principles and WebCT.

Abstract

Prompted by a demand for increased efficiency, measurable outcomes, dwindling resources, and changing student demographics, academics worldwide face the challenge of meshing teaching and technology. This paper discusses how enhancing traditional face-to-face classrooms with WebCT can help teachers adopt a more effective student-centered perspective. WebCT offers educators not only a way to incorporate technology into their classrooms and redesign them in challenging ways, but also to advance Chickering and Gamson's "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education."

**********

As a professor at a science and engineering university, the push to "do more technology" in my classes comes as no big surprise. Academics worldwide face the challenge of meshing technology and teaching to meet demands for increased efficiency, measurable outcomes, dwindling resources, and changing student demographics. Course management systems like WebCT promise to help address many of these challenges, but can WebCT really help students learn? As I developed a series of traditional classes enhanced with online WebCT sites, I answered this nagging question--not by focusing primarily on the technology but by returning to Chickering and Gamson's 1987 classic, "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education." For me, three years and seven hybrid classes later, the verdict is in affirming WebCT as an effective way to enhance teaching and learning. For me, WebCT and the Seven Principles have become an educational "Dream Team."

For those new to course management systems, WebCT was created in 1997 and now bills itself as "the world's leading provider of e-learning systems for higher education," with member institutions in 70 countries (http://www.webct.com). WebCT can be used to create entire online courses or to supplement existing courses. Students use passwords to login to the WebCT site, which provides an online environment for placing course materials and features like a calendar, quizzes, grade book, e-mail, and discussion boards. WebCT does not require extensive HTML skills, and the company's web site provides tutorials. However, it does require a strong computer infrastructure and support system to handle the technical difficulties that can--and do--pop up.

Williams believes that research on using the Web in a pedagogical context has so far been limited to "description(s) of technology implementation with little regard to the wider issues" (41). Although this is a legitimate concern given WebCT's global use, a number of studies do point to WebCT's ease of use, effective range of features, and positive student reception (Clark; Stith; McLean and Murrell). Other research concludes that students learn equally well in web environments despite differences in learning styles, gender, age, or previous web-based learning experiences (Lu, et al.; Morss; Wernet, et al.; Wolfe). These studies helped me get my (web) feet wet and create my first two hybrid classes with WebCT links to the Syllabus, Lectures, Research Sites, Quizzes, E-mail, and Grade Book. Although I liked the organization WebCT offered and student surveys at the end of the term were positive, I wondered if this hybrid approach fostered what Marton and Saljo call "deep-level" learning, as opposed to memorize-and-recall "surface-level" learning (117). I realized that although I was using new technology, I was entrenched in a pedagogy that was more teacher-centered than student-centered, i.e., students learning as a result of what the teacher does, not what the student does. I was providing learning resources, not learning activities. According to Biggs, "the learning activity, and not the technology or medium in which it is used, is the key to improved outcomes" (quoted at Housego and Freeman). The only interactive online activities I provided were sporadic quizzes and emails. Simply providing a site that functioned as a repository of knowledge wasn't enough to stimulate "deep learning."

During the next academic year I worked to develop more student-centered hybrid classes. By now I was fairly comfortable with the technology, so I returned to an old standby for evaluating teaching in the traditional classroom, Chickering and Gamson's widely adopted "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education" (1987). I had long endorsed these principles in my teaching, but it wasn't until I read articles by Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) and Graham, et al. (2001), that I connected them with WebCT. Over the next three years I developed hybrid classes for lower and upper level writing and humanities classes. The sites evolved to include these components: Calendar, Syllabus, Let's Talk (e-mail, chat room, discussion board), Online Research Guides, Quizzes, Assignments, Student Presentations, Student Web Pages, and Grade Book. So why do I consider WebCT and the Seven Principles a helpful and effective "Dream Team"?

1. Good Practice Encourages Student-Faculty Contact

According to Chickering and Gamson, "Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student motivation and involvement." One reason I chose a hybrid approach rather than a totally online class was because as a professor "I, too, like to hear the voices and see the faces of my students" (Willett 414). With hybrid classes, I still hold office conferences and interact with students in class and around campus. However, WebCT supplements my communication with students. For example, with the calendar tool I can remind them of due dates or assignment changes, while the real-time chat room can be used to schedule meetings with off-campus students. Class e-mail doesn't replace my face-to-face interactions with students; it enhances them. With access to WebCT e-mail and chat, students whose work or family obligations make personal conferences difficult are kept "in the loop." Furthermore, for those students who remain too shy to speak in class, an asynchronous medium like e-mail gives them a voice while promoting self confidence by allowing them to draft and reflect upon thoughts before sharing them with me (Chickering and Ehrmann).

WebCT's discussion tool can also encourage student-faculty contact. Having to respond individually to a deluge of e-mails on the same question would be daunting, but creating separate threads avoids this. For example, in my Technical Communications discussion area, students use "General Class Questions" to send me questions probably shared by others, and I respond to the whole class with one typed response, not 25. We use special topic threads such as "Ethics" and "The Job Search" to discuss focused questions. As Graham, et al., point out, however, the key to using such tools is to give students clear guidelines up front, including your timeline for responding. I find meeting the class in a computer lab at the beginning of the semester to practice using WebCT avoids lots of problems later.

2. Good Practice Encourages Cooperation Among Students

Chickering and Gamson stress that "good learning, like good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated." WebCT's communication tools can be a big help in this area, too. For example, students can correspond with each other via e-mail or meet in one of the real-time chat rooms to work on team projects or continue discussions even though they can't meet physically. Then, too, as Graham, et al., emphasize, well-designed online discussion assignments conducted by the students can also facilitate cooperation. They suggest assigning teams of students to initiate and conduct an online class discussion on a topic proposed by the professor. Participation should be required, the task must result in a product, and evaluations are based on the quality of postings, not the length. I've tried this in Technical Communication II where student teams summarize an ethical dilemma for the class, suggest alternate ways of responding, collect ideas from students, and then present a brief summary of the class consensus on solving the ethical dilemma. WebCT's student presentations also offers student teams a (cyber)space to work together on projects. Each team has a file sharing folder within which to work on projects or quickly e-mail teammates and when completed team projects can be opened up to the entire class for evaluation and revision.

3. Good Practice Encourages Active Learning

Chickering and Gamson remind us that "learning is not a spectator sport." Real learning requires active researching, summarizing, synthesizing, and applying class material, not rote answers given on cue. As mentioned, student-managed discussion threads are active places in WebCT, as is student presentations, where students prepare and upload drafts, peer comments, and revised documents. In addition to encouraging student activity and cooperation, knowing that their projects will be open for class scrutiny often motivates students to perform at a higher level and validates their writing in a way that handing it in to the teacher doesn't (McNulty). Active learning is also encouraged by having students post to student web pages. In my Technical Communication I class, for example, students post their homepages to Student Web Pages and then periodically add to or revise it after receiving comments from me and their peers on how to develop it for networking and marketing. I also emphasize active learning by providing an online research guides area and then requiring students to use these links to complete assignments. If students know that using WebCT is a required, monitored and evaluated part of the course, they are more likely to use it more actively. (Yes, professors can track student visits to any WebCT area.) The quiz feature is yet another way of keeping students actively engaged. The quizzes are open/available for several days, but it is the student's responsibility to login and take the quiz before it expires. After reviewing questions missed, students may take the quiz again if they wish, and the two grades are averaged and automatically entered into the grade book.

4. Good Practice Gives Prompt Feedback

According to Chickering and Gamson, "knowing what you know and don't know focuses learning." so giving students feedback on performance is crucial. This could be students giving feedback among themselves using WebCT's various communication tools, student presentations, or student web pages as already mentioned, as well as instructors giving students "information" or "acknowledgement" feedback. Informational feedback answers questions, give comments, or assigns grades, while acknowledgement feedback simply says a paper has been received, response will be forthcoming, etc.(Graham, et al.). Although I now consider providing online informational feedback to students a key benefit of hybrid classes, I was initially dubious. After all, I had graded papers by hand for years and missed all those red circles, arrows, and marginal notes! However, I soon realized I can type my comments faster than I can write them, so I can actually give more substantive feedback on student papers, not less. Sometimes I give the whole class comments after noting certain trends in their work, but most of the time I give students private online feedback. Electronic copies of submitted work, with commentary, can be kept in an online portfolio for further revision and reevaluation or opened up to the class for peer advice, functions particularly useful in classes like Freshman Writing.

5. Good Practice Emphasizes Time on Task

"Learning to use one's time well is critical for students and professionals alike" (Chickering and Gamson). As a professor, I like not wasting class time handing back papers, giving quizzes, or providing reams of handouts. Class time can be better used for presenting and discussing material, student speeches, and group work. One effective way WebCT emphasizes time on task is through the assignment tool, where I post assignments to students, and where they upload their finished work for my comments and grading. When an assignment is given via WebCT its deadline is clearly stated and enforced; it blocks uploading of late papers. Sliding papers under the door ten minutes past the due date no longer works; students seeking to turn in late work by hand must meet with me. For many students these firm deadlines are useful ways of learning to manage busy schedules and avoiding procrastination (Graham, et al.). The WebCT site itself promotes time efficiency in the sense that it provides online resources and communicating tools to replace student trips to campus to do research, submit assignments, pick up missed handouts, or meet with professors. Finally, WebCT's calendar tool provides at-a-glance time management by allowing students to make private entries on their own calendar.

6. Good Practice Communicates High Expectations

Chickering and Gamson advise "Expect more and you will get more." One way professors can communicate high expectations is by giving challenging assignments (Graham, et al.). Assignments that encourage thinking "outside the box" tell students we expect more than rote responses or quick web searches for fact bytes. Furthermore, professors can model their expectations by providing examples of assignments with comments on why they are strong or weak. Of course, challenging assignments and models of work can be used without WebCT but formally posting the assignments in the closed class cyberspace and having models available for students at any time is a way of consistently reinforcing what we expect from students (Ritter 105). For example, in both of my Technical Communications classes, I post evaluation sheets for speeches on WebCT so as the semester progresses students can clearly see how the criteria change for different speaking types. Also, regularly publishing student work for class viewing in student presentations or student web pages emphasizes that this class is about producing high quality work, which professors further validate when they publicly praise exemplary student projects, web pages, or discussion contributions (Graham, et al.).

7. Good Practice Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning

Chickering and Gamson acknowledge that "There are many roads to learning." Some students work better in groups, other alone; some are good speakers, others better writers; some think well on their feet, others need time to reflect. Combining a face-to-face classroom with an online WebCT site can meet these different learning needs. Furthermore, as Ritter and Lemke point out, internet courses can facilitate students who have visual, auditory, or tactile learning styles. For example, hybrid classes can offer students high-quality graphics, photographs, recordings, hands-on activities, and virtual "field trips"--all outside the regular class time at the student's convenience (105-106). For example, in my Literature of the Civil War class students supplemented our in-class discussion of racism by going online to the Harper's Weekly site to do individual research. In Intro to Humanities, in-class lectures on art were supplemented by students going online to view art from major galleries; and in Computers in Society and American Social History, in-class team debates were supplemented with periodic online individual journal entries in which students reflected and commented on issues debated. A WebCT enhanced class acknowledges that learning is not "one size fits all."

My own experiment with WebCT hybrid classes continues. Creating these hybrid classes has been tremendously time consuming and sometimes frustrating and disheartening. Technology snafus do occur, not all students like a hybrid environment and say so, and my own technological limits as a humanities professor are stretched to the limit. As Peterson points out, though, it is time for educators to set aside our fears of how technology may impact the traditional learning environments we feel comfortable in. Instead of simply dismissing web-based learning courses "because they do not look like the classes we are used to, we need to discuss the most effective and ethically responsible ways to incorporate these technologies" (367). Based on my experiences, I believe the WebCT/Seven Principles "Dream Team" offers a way for educators to create more student-centered classrooms, blend teaching and technology, and continue to advance sound principles of teaching practice.

Works Cited

Chickering, Arthur W. and Zelda F. Gamson. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education." American Association of Higher Education Bulletin 39 (1987): 3-7. http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom /guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm.

Chickering, Arthur W. and Stephen C. Ehrmann. "Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever." American Association of Higher Education Bulletin (October 1996): 3-6. Available at: http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.

Clark, Jim. "A Product Review of WebCT." Internet and Higher Education 5 (2002):79-82.

Graham, Charles and Kursat Cagiltay, et al. "Seven Principles of Effective Teaching: A Practical Lens for Evaluating Online Courses." The Technology Source (March/April 2001). Available at: http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=839.

Housego, Simon, and Mark Freeman. "Case Studies: Integrating the Use of Web Based Learning Systems into Student Learning." Australian Journal of Educational Technology 16(3) (2000):258-282. Available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/housego.html.

Lu, June and Chung-Sheng Yu, et al. "Learning Style, Learning Patterns, and Learning Performance in a WebCT-based MIS Course." Information & Management 40 (2003): 497-507.

Marton, F. and R. Saljo. "Qualitative Differences in Learning: Outcome as a Function of the Learner's Conception of the Task." British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1976): 115-27.

McLean, Michelle, and Kathy Murrell. "WebCT: Integrating Computer-Mediated Communication and Resource Delivery into a New Problem-Based Curriculum." Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine 25.1 (March 2002): 8-15.

McNulty, Kevin T. "Fostering the Student-Centered Classroom Online." THE Journal (Technological Horizons in Education 29.7 (February 2002). Available at: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3855B.cfm.

Morss, Dean A. "A Study of Student Perspectives on Web-based Learning: WebCT in the Classroom." Internet Research: Networking Applications and Policy 9.5 (1999): 393-408. Peterson, Patricia Webb. "The Debate about Online Learning: Key Issues for Writing Teachers." Computers and Composition 18.4 (2001):359-370.

Ritter, Michael E. and Karen Lemke, "Addressing the 'Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education' with Internet-Enhanced Education." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24.1 (2000): 100-108.

Stith, Brad. "Web-Enhanced Courses Score Big with Students and Faculty." T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education) 28.8 (March 2000): 20-.

Wernet, Stephen P., et al. "Postcourse Evaluations of WebCT (Web Course Tools) Classes by Social Work Students." Research on Social Work Practice 10.4 (July 2000): 487-504.

Willett, Holly G. "Not One or the Other but Both: Hybrid Course Delivery Using WebCT." The Electronic Library 20.5 (October 29, 2002): 413-419.

Williams, Peter. "The Learning Web: The Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Internet-based Undergraduate Materials for the Teaching of Key Skills." Active Learning in Higher Education 3.1 (2002): 40-53.

Wolfe, Christopher. Learning and Teaching on the World Wide Web. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001.

Judy E. Sneller, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Sneller, Ph.D., is a Professor of English teaching freshman writing, technical communications, humanities, and literature courses.