Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: students' attitudes, expectations, and perceptions.

Based on expectations from previous studies, data from field notes, pre- and post-questionnaires, class documentation, student papers from 35 undergraduate and graduate students, and the content of a focus group session were analyzed to relate students' pre-course attitudes and expectations, and several cognitive factors to participation levels and perceptions about learning via asynchronous online discussions to supplement class meetings. Results showed that while students' attitudes and expectations about computers and online learning were not significantly correlated to their participation levels and perceptions of learning, several significant intercorrelations between pre-course attitudes, expectations about bulletin board systems (BBS) used for class discussions, and expected learning were found. In addition, greater levels of participation were found to engender greater satisfaction. Findings suggest several methods which may be used to change students' perceptions and raise their levels of participation.

Introduction

Research in the instructional use of asynchronous computer conferencing (CC) shows that, in general, participation and interaction in online discussions can be at least as high as in face-to-face discussions (Hiltz, 1990; Pena-Shaff, Martin & Gay, 2001, Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004).

Moreover, content analyses of electronic messages also have shown that online discussions support collaborative learning (Resta, 1995; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996), favor the use of critical thinking skills (Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995; Newman, Johnson, Cochrane, & Webb, 1996), and promote the social construction of knowledge (Butler, 1992; Pena-Shaff et al., 2001, Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004; Zhu, 1996).

Studies examining students' perceptions of online learning experiences, however, report mixed results (Davidson-Shivers, Tanner, & Muilenburg, 2000; O'Reilly & Newton, 2001; Sturgill, Martin & Gay, 1999; Wilson & Whitelock, 1998). For example, Wilson and Whitelock (1998) found that although over half of the students valued the possible interactions with students or tutors, half were either unsure or could not see a learning benefit from the interactions with others. Also, Sturgill and colleagues (1999), in assessing the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and online discussions as supplements to regular class meetings, found that many students felt great frustration when required to use CMC as part of their learning process while learning about this technology; felt that they had not learned; and found CC to be distant and dehumanizing. However, as the authors explain, even though not conscious of it, students evidenced deep understanding of the course topic, indicating that learning did occur.

These studies show that within the same course students display different levels of satisfaction with CC and perceive the value of online discussions differently. Therefore, course design and instructor's style can account only for part of the variance found in these studies. Student characteristics are important variables to consider when analyzing the learning benefits of new teaching approaches or new learning environments.

Student Characteristics and Learning in Online Discussions

Several studies have mentioned that student characteristics may affect the use and success of online discussions in learning environments (Heller & Kearsley, 1995; Ellis and McCreary, 1985, Hiltz, 1990; Mason, 1992). Some researchers acknowledge self-responsibility and self-regulated learning as student characteristics that affect participation and perceptions about the learning benefits of CC (Heller & Kearsley, 1995; Hiemstra and Sysco, 1990). Mason (1992) also explains that some of the problems with online learning environments can be attributed partly to students' passivity. Koschmann, (1996) warns that the learners' intentions regarding the acquisition of knowledge and the effort required in that endeavor should also be considered, since some students are more active than others and therefore enjoy the process of active mental construction more, while other students merely with to pass their courses with a limited amount of effort. In this context, Fang (1998) and Wolfradt and Doll (2001), note that students' self-efficacy and levels of innovativeness were also tied to their propensity to use CMC to acquire information.

Motivation has also been cited as possibly affecting students' attitudes toward online discussions. Several studies report that when CC is used as a supplement to regular class meetings students perceive it as a time consuming and burdensome activity. This affects their attitudes toward the use of CC (Althous, 1997; Smith, 1994; Sturgill, et al., 1999), and probably overshadows the learning benefits of online discussions (Sturgill, et al., 1999). Several researchers have found the need for some type of reinforcement for participation when online discussions are used outside of class (Althous, 1997; Hawisher & Pemberton, 1997; Jiang & Ting, 1998; Ruberg, Moore & Taylor, 1996). For example, Jiang and Ting (1998) found positive correlations between students' perceived learning in online courses and the percentage of course grade attributed to online discussions. According to Hawisher and Pemberton (1997), "students need to be made accountable for their participation [in online discussions]. Mere instructor encouragement and good will are generally not enough to overcome the initial inertia most students experience when they take on what appears to be an extra burden" (p. 69). However, Irvine (2000), points out that the use of incentives may actually hinder participation and learning. Learning goals have also been shown to affect learning outcomes and motivation to participate (Tergan, 1997). In this sense, a major factor in students' acceptance and use of CMC is the degree to which they perceive it as useful (Fang, 1998; Tolmie & Boyle, 2000).

Latting (1994) reported that prior contact with an instructor and experience with cooperative learning were important factors that could alleviate anxiety and affect student participation in online discussions. Fowell and Levy (1995) found that fear and anxiety initially affected students' acceptance of the online assignments and inhibited participation, although as students' levels of confidence and skills increased so did their participation. In this regard, Fishman (1999) reported that communication apprehension, especially apprehension about written communication, can affect students' participation and interaction in online discussions and their perceived learning benefits.

Hastings (2000) and Vranesh (2002) emphasize the need to consider students' learning styles when choosing a particular instructional design. Hastings (2000) reports that online class discussions were ranked both as the most and the least effective activity, "illustrating that what works well for one student does not work well for others" (p.7).

Finally, it has been reported that students' level of cognitive maturity may affect their perceptions of online discussions (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Boeglin & Campbell, 2002). Baxter Magolda (1992) posits that students interpret their educational experiences based on their assumptions about the nature of, limits of, and certainty about knowledge. Thus when faced with a new, open-ended, learner-centered, cooperative learning experience, some students experience cognitive dissonance. Moreover, due to their levels of epistemological immaturity, some students may not find other students' contributions via CC to be credible sources of knowledge. In this regard, Boeglin and Campbell (2002) suggest that some learners expect only to learn from an intellectual authority.

Just as in face-to-face courses, what students bring to the teaching-learning process affects their participation, interactions, and perceptions about the possible learning outcomes of a course, and of CC. As the use of CC for distance learning and as a supplement to regular class discussions increases, it is imperative to understand how students' characteristics may affect their participation in online discussions, and even more importantly how these characteristics may affect their perceptions about whether they learn from these experiences. Studying which characteristics may affect the use of online discussions can be beneficial for instructors who may then give special attention to those students needing more support, enabling them to design scaffolding activities that help students become comfortable sharing ideas in online discussions (Fishman, 1999). Very few of the studies undertaken in this area have addressed actual measures of perceptual change, relying instead solely on post-experience questionnaires.

Through the comparison of pretest and posttest measures, this study analyzes students' attitudes and expectations about the use of asynchronous CC for learning and their perceptions about the quality of learning that results. The following specific research questions are addressed:

1. How do students' attitudes and expectations towards computers and online discussions for class purposes influence their participation and their perceived learning outcomes from these discussions?

2. What learning benefits, if any, do students perceive from the online discussions?

3. What factors affect students' perceptions and participation of online discussions?

METHODOLOGY

This research effort used a case study approach in which data were collected during a one semester, advanced, elective, three-credit communication course exploring the use and design of CMC technologies for work, learning, and leisure activities. Several aspects of the course showed explicitly that it involved active participation and active use of CMC. Among these were the laboratory setting; the course website, which stated that exploration, research, and discussions were among the overall goals of the course; and the assignments, which required students to work collaboratively, discuss course readings via the Bulletin Board System (BBS), keep an ongoing journal, and complete an Individual Assessment, Integration, and Summary Paper (IAISP) integrating their readings and CMC experiences during the course.

The Bulletin Board System (BBS)

The BBS provided an asynchronous, text-based, online environment for students to discuss weekly topics. It consisted of a home page on the Internet, where all the messages posted were listed by date of posting, with the latest messages on top, showing the discussion thread for each topic as an outlined table of contents. Each subject title was a hyperlink that enabled students to read the complete posted message and reply to it. One advantage of this format is that it is easier to follow the thread of discussions than in listserv discussions.

On the course website, on the syllabus, and during class time students were urged to consider the value of their participation in the BBS discussions, both as an individual learning activity and as a contribution to and an enrichment of the course.

Online participation accounted for 10% of the final grade and students could participate as many times as they wished. They were required to participate at least once each week by posting to a discussion of the readings on the BBS. Weekly participation on the BBS was graded based on the frequency of students' weekly postings and not on the content of their messages. Students only needed access to the Internet to enter the BBS; little computer expertise was required to use the system.

The BBS discussions were unstructured, providing an open forum that allowed students to reflect on and articulate their thoughts at their own pace, consult the course readings and other materials, and reflect on other students' ideas before replying to postings or initiating their own discussions. During the first four weeks, the professor posted questions to initiate discussion, but for the remainder of the semester she joined in discussions initiated by the students, as an ordinary participant. The lead author also participated in the BBS discussions as another ordinary, contributing participant.

To promote participation and interaction, each week one or two students were selected to moderate the online discussions. The moderator's role was to facilitate discussion by initiating topics, answering other students' questions, asking further questions, providing feedback, and summarizing. Eleven students served as moderators during the semester. Selection of the moderators was based on their low frequency of online participation. The objective in selecting these students was to prompt them to participate by giving them the responsibility of moderating the BBS discussions.

The Students

Thirty-four of the 35 students originally enrolled completed the course. Equally divided by gender, students' ages ranged from 19 to 47 years with an average age of 24.97 years. Sixty-three percent of the students were 24 years of age or younger. Twenty-two of the participants were undergraduate students, eight were graduate students and five were university employees with Bachelors or Masters degrees. Nine students (25%) in the course reported above average computer (CMC) expertise. Thirty of the students (89%) owned computers, and all were able to access the course web page either from their homes or their offices. Among the students there were four international students, two Hispanics, two Asian Americans, and one African American.

Data Collection and Analyses

Quantitative data were gathered through pre- and post-questionnaires designed to gather information about participants' attitudes, expectations, and perceptions about the use of the BBS for class discussions. Both questionnaires were based on Hiltz's (1990) evaluation instruments, with some modifications to accommodate specific course characteristics. The pre-course questionnaire was administered at the end of the second class of the semester. It included demographic questions; 13 seven-point scale Likert scale questions where one (1) indicated negative attitudes/expectations and seven (7) indicated positive attitudes/expectations; and 2 multiple-choice questions. The post-course questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the last class (week 14). The first part of this questionnaire used the same 7-point Likert scale questions as the pre-course questionnaire, measuring post-course attitudes and perceptions instead. However, the post-course questionnaire included additional items to measure students' subjective assessment of the course, their participation in the online discussions, and the importance of the professor's role in online discussions as a motivator for their participation.

Qualitative data gathered included the transcripts of the focus group session, students' biographical sketches (written by the students during the first week of the semester), pertinent information from students' assignments (biographical sketches, IAISP and BBS postings), and field notes. A focus group session was conducted during the last day of class. The purpose of the focus group session was to gather information about students' perceptions about their participation in the BBS, the educational value of the BBS, perceptions about the professor's role in the BBS discussions, and ways to improve the use of BBS as part of the course curriculum. The questions were developed with the assistance and recommendations of the professor. It also included focus group questions used in previous semesters. Thirteen students were randomly selected from a pool of 25 students that included active, moderate, and non-active participants in the online discussions.

Data gathering instruments were inclusive meaning that the information gathered via one instrument was used to complement data gathered with others.

Validity and Reliability

The purpose of this study was to better understand student-CMC dynamics and those aspects that may affect participation, interaction, and perceived learning outcomes in online discussions. Although not generalizable, the issue of transferability was addressed in this study by providing detailed descriptions about the course context, the online environment, and students' characteristics. Credibility was addressed via prolonged engagement and long-term observation, peer debriefing, progressive subjectivity, informal member checks, and triangulation of multiple sources of data. To assure confirmability of the findings, this report includes appropriate excerpts from the raw data.

RESULTS

Participation

Throughout the semester students posted an average of 13.73 messages, slightly over the one required message per week, with only 50% of students participating 13 times or more during the semester. These results parallel those of Hara, Bonk, and Angeli (2000). Twenty-eight of the students participated between 9 and 12 times and 24% participated 8 or fewer times in the online discussions. Graduate students participated more frequently and evenly than undergraduate students.

Students' Attitudes, Frequency of Participation, and Perceptions of Online Discussions

Students' feelings towards computers initially varied from enthusiastic to hostile. Using a set of paired words to select the one that better represented their current feelings about using computers for class purposes, the average mean of students' responses was 5.19 points in a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (negative feelings) to 7 (positive feelings). Negative feelings about the use of computers represented only 16% of students' responses, while 73% of their answers showed more positive feelings or were neutral (11%) about using computers for class purposes. The most persistent negative perceptions related to the difficulty of using computers, their impersonal nature, and the demands of using the computer as a class requirement. This was true even among those students who showed overall positive feelings toward the use of computers.

Statistical analysis showed substantial stability of attitudes regarding the use of computers overtime (r (29) = .681, p<.0.05); however, they were slightly less favorable, even when some positive attitudinal changes occurred (pre-course M=5.19; post-course M=5.08). Figure 1 shows the mean changes in attitudes over the course of the semester.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Pre-course attitudes, as seen in Table 1, were neither correlated with frequency of participation (number of messages posted) nor with perceptions of learning at the end of the semester.

Students' Expectations of BBS Discussions and Perceived Learning Outcomes

Overall, post-course perceptions of the BBS attributes improved slightly when compared to students' expectations at the beginning of the semester (M=5.08 as compared to M=4.93 in the pre-test). After taking the course, students found the BBS easier to learn and less frustrating, though more impersonal and less productive than originally expected. Figure 2 shows the pre- and post-course means for each of the qualifiers based on a 7-point Likert scale (from negative to positive expectations/perceptions).

Although pre-course expectations about the learning value of online discussions were not very optimistic, post-course perceptions were even less positive (M=3.6 as compared to M=4.04 in the pre-course questionnaire). At the beginning of the semester, over one quarter (29%) of the students were neutral on whether the BBS would increase the efficiency and quality of their learning, or whether it would help them to comprehend the material better. The other three-quarters of the students were almost equally divided between more negative expectations (33%) and more positive expectations (38%). Thirty percent of the students resented being required to use the BBS in this course and 26% did not expect it to be very useful for their learning. Twenty-three percent of the students had negative expectations about the benefits of using the BBS to improve the quality of their learning, averaging less than 3.5 in a scale from 1 to 7. In contrast, at the end of the semester, 51% of the students did not view the BBS discussions as an efficient learning medium. In addition, although 46% of the students felt that the online discussions added to their learning, many felt that it did not make any difference (19%) or that its use was not very helpful (35%). Paradoxically, even when students did not value the BBS discussions as a rich learning activity and 45% resented the participation requirement, half of the students perceived the BBS discussions as useful for this course.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Several significant intercorrelations between pre-course attitudes, expectations about BBS use for class discussions, and expected learning were found (See Table 1). Pre-course attitudes and expectations correlated negatively with student pre-course resentment of being asked to participate in online discussions (r=-.634 p<.01). The less positive students' attitudes and expectations were, the more they seemed to have resented the requirement. No correlations were found between expectations about BBS use and learning, frequency of participation and perceived learning outcomes, although post-course perceptions of learning were significantly correlated with perceived participation (See Table 1). Not surprisingly, students' resentment at the end of the semester was negatively correlated with frequency of participation (r=-.450, p<.05), perceptions about the use of the BBS for class discussions (r=-.550 p<.01), and perceived learning value of these discussions (r=-.436 p<.01), as well as with perceived usefulness of the medium (r=-.560 p<.05). The more the students participated and the more value they saw in these discussions, the less they resented the participation requirement.

Students' Perceived Benefits from Online Discussions

Those students who perceived the BBS discussions as meaningful to their learning highlighted several important characteristics of the BBS that helped them reflect and learn the course material. Five different categories, summarizing students' perceived benefits are described below.

Extended time to reflect on and structure their ideas. Because BBS discussions were asynchronous and extended over the week, some students felt that the BBS discussions allowed them time to prepare comments, check assigned readings, think about what others had written, and structure their thoughts before communicating their ideas.

In-depth discussion of class topics. Some students felt that the BBS allowed more in-depth discussion than in-class discussion would permit. In contrast to face-to-face class discussions, where students have limited time to discuss topics and more vocal students often dominate the discussions, the BBS allowed all students the same opportunity to participate and communicate their thoughts.

Access to different perspectives. Students felt the BBS gave them the opportunity to read different perspectives on the same issue. This allowed them to evaluate different frameworks, not just their own.

Database of topics and integration of class material. The BBS provided a database of the topics under discussion; a feature that some students felt helped them to expand their knowledge, since they could see previous postings and relate them to the current discussion. In addition, the BBS provided a place where students could integrate in-class discussions, readings, lab exercises, and lectures. Since one of the course objectives was to analyze the social implications of CMC, the online discussions provided the opportunity to analyze CMC from the users' perspective.

Increased control. Some students appreciated the fact that the BBS gave them more control over the discussion, and felt more comfortable discussion issues through this medium than face-to-face. As one student wrote in the IAISP: "I've been more 'vocal' in this course than most of the courses I've taken at [University name]. Initially, I was nervous about being 'attacked' on the Bulletin Board, but ... I'd rather people jump all over my ideas on the computer than face-to-face."

Students' Reasons for Participating in the Online Discussions

The main reason most students participated in the online discussions was that it was a course requirement. Among the 12 students who participated in the focus group session, only four said they would have used the BBS even if it had not been required. For some students, the requirement helped them overcome a reluctance to write things in the BBS, and to become more comfortable participating online:

   I think at the beginning I was very careful about what I posted
   and ... I analyzed the comments that I was going to make and that
   sort of thing. But, I think the reason that I continued to enjoy it
   is [that] I became more casual with it ... So I increased my comfort
   level through the semester so that I was more motivated to do it.

Some students overcame the anxiety of participating in the online discussions when they participated as online moderators. Three students selected as moderators, who had not participated prior to assuming that role, became active participants. As one student expressed:

   I hadn't actually posted anything or really checked it often until I
   became moderator for the week. It was at this point that I found some
   interesting discussions on the bulletin board and I began to
   participate.

Students felt more likely to participate in discussions posted mainly by people they knew, or by those whom they thought made interesting comments. Also, students seem to have been more likely to respond to those messages with which they disagreed (50%), rather than to those messages that confirmed their own points of view (13%).

Feedback from other students was a major factor affecting participation and interaction in the online discussions. Ninety-four percent of the students checked frequently to see if other students had replied or added a comment to their postings. This seems to have been an important motivator, and its lack, an inhibitor, for some students to continue participating. As one student mentioned,

   It was fun to return to the site a few hours after I had included
   messages on the Bulletin Board and find that people had replied to
   me [...] if one of my comments was challenged in class, I would have
   been prone to not respond. On the bulletin board, however, I actively
   defended my statements.

For some students it was a combination of factors that made them participate in the BBS discussions. With regard to her participation, one of the most active students in the BBS discussions, said in the focus group session:

   I posted quite a few of my own like initial topic things. Usually
   they were based on things that we discussed in class or maybe things
   that I had just discussed with my friends like throughout the week
   relating to computers and ... I a lot of times posted follow-ups if I
   disagreed or if they were my friend's messages a lot of times I
   will ... and also to defend myself. I did a lot of follow-ups to
   follow-ups if I felt that I needed to defend my original point or
   something.

This description summarized several of the participation and interaction patterns of those students who were active participants in the BBS discussions. As she described what motivated her to participate, several students in the focus group session nodded and laughed when they found patterns common to their own behavior.

In summary, full participation in online discussions, regardless of attitudes or expectations, resulted in more increased activity, lessening of anxieties, increased comfort level and increased competence.

Factors that Hindered Students' Perceptions and Participation

Several factors seem to have affected students' perceptions and participation in online discussions negatively. First, fear of publicly exposing written comments and sounding ignorant. Some students expressed anxiety about posting their opinions on the BBS, feeling that their contributions would be attacked or would sound unintelligent when compared to the comments made by more knowledgeable students. Apprehension about sounding ignorant was also evidenced by students in the focus group, who reported being very concerned about writing something that sounded intelligent or intellectual. For example, one student said, "I felt like everything that I posted had to be very intellectual and very technical, and so it was very difficult to, and especially because my background is not technical."

Lack of feedback negatively affected some students. One participant who rarely participated in the online discussions stated, "I tried to--I think once or twice and when I did, you know, there weren't many follow-ups so that sort of discouraged me not to post anything on my own."

Although some students found learning benefits in the online discussions, others considered most of the postings personal thoughts without much added content. Some felt that being forced to participate made postings just a chore, not a thoughtful activity from which to learn something of value.

Finally, statistical analysis revealed that resentment that the BBS discussions were a graded assignment had a negative impact on participation. Several students rebelled against the fact that online discussions were a graded assignment, refusing to post more than a few times, or posting comments with minimal content, just to complete the course requirement. One of the reasons for this resentment may have been a lack of time, "For me it was just a time issue. It's something I wanted to do personally, you know, I did enjoy it [the BBS discussions] and I would have liked to be able to do it more, but it was the time issue...." Or as another student posted to the BBS, "no one desires the extra work." However, most students in the focus group session agreed that some kind of incentive or requirement was needed to induce participation.

DISCUSSION

Students' initial attitudes toward using computers for class purposes were generally positive but diverse, ranging from avidly enthusiastic to hostile. The most persistent negative perceptions related to the difficulty of using computers, their impersonal nature, and the demands of using the computer as a class requirement. This was true even among those students who reported positive overall feelings toward computer use.

Students' expectations about the attributes of the BBS were also varied but positive overall, and after taking the course their perceptions about the attributes of the system improved slightly. Although students found the system easier to use and less frustrating than originally expected, they also found it less productive and more impersonal. These perceptions, as we discuss below may be related to a lack of validation from others, and to the fact that many students perceived the online discussions as a chore with no meaningful content value.

Students' expectations about the learning value of online discussions were not very optimistic. Over a quarter of the students were neutral about whether the BBS would increase the efficiency and quality of their learning, or whether it would help them to comprehend the material better; another quarter had negative expectations about the possible learning value of these discussions, from the beginning. Interestingly, regardless of the course title, over a quarter of the students resented being required to participate in the weekly online discussions, even before the semester started.

At the beginning of the semester, students' attitudes and expectations towards computers, the BBS, and online learning, however, neither predicted their participation on the BBS nor their perceptions of learning outcomes at the end of the semester. Their attitudes and expectations tended to remain quite stable over the course of the semester although in some instances they became more negative. Conversely, several significant correlations were found between pre-course attitudes, expectations about BBS use for class discussions, and expected learning. Pre-course attitudes and expectations correlated negatively with pre-course resentment at being asked to participate in online discussions: the more negative students' attitudes and expectations were, the more they seemed to have resented the requirement. This has implications for educational practice, as introductory activities that address initial attitudes and expectations may help reduce students' resentment and resistance to new educational approaches, such as CC. In addition, perceptions of learning were significantly correlated with perceived levels of participation. Therefore, perceived increased participation, which also correlated positively with actual participation, may have had a positive effect in the learning value students perceived in these discussions. It seems as though the more students participated and became involved in the online discussions, the more value they saw in these discussions and in classmates' input, the less they resented the participation requirement, and the more comfortable they became with the requirement. Not surprisingly, students' resentment at the end of the semester was significantly negatively correlated with frequency of participation, and with the perceived learning value of these discussions.

Just as in previous studies (Davidson-Shivers, et al., 2000; O'Reilly & Newton, 2001; Sturgill, et al., 1999; Wilson & Whitelock, 1998) regarding students' perceptions of online discussions, we found students' perception of the learning benefits of online discussions mixed and overall negative. Paradoxically, Pena-Shaff's and Nicholls's (2004) content analysis of the online discussions revealed that learning did occur and that students were actually creating meaning from these discussions. Elaboration, clarification, self-questioning, and interpretation of ideas from the readings and other students were commonly evidenced in the messages as well as a process of self-reflection that seemed to move from a social or interactive sphere (building up on someone's message) to a more individual reflective sphere. These contrasting results are similar to the ones described by Sturgill et al. (1999).

Perceived Benefits of Online Discussions

Several attributes of the BBS were highlighted by students who perceived it to be a rich learning environment. For some, the BBS provided them with more time to prepare their comments, allowing them to check the course readings or other sources of information, think about other students' comments, and structure their own thoughts before communicating their ideas. Others appreciated the fact that the BBS allowed them to encounter different perspectives on the topics being discussed. Some also felt that the BBS allowed for more in-depth discussion of the class topics than in-class discussion would permit.

In addition, the BBS provided a database of the topics under discussion; a feature that some students felt helped them to expand their knowledge. Some students were more likely to defend their views online than in face-to-face discussions.

Finally, some students found that the BBS created an environment in which class discussions, readings, and labs could be integrated. It encouraged students to continue discussion of class topics during the week and to use the technology, giving them the ability to analyze CMC from a users' perspective, which was one of the course goals. The benefits cited here go hand in hand with social constructivist approaches to learning and have been cited numerous times when discussing the advantages of online discussions.

Factors Affecting Students' Perceptions of Online Discussions

Several factors seem to have hindered students' perceptions about the learning benefits of online discussions, and in some cases their active participation in them.

Perceived lack of substance and usefulness in the discussions. Some students considered their peers' postings just personal thoughts with no valuable content. As Fang (1998), and Tolmie and Boyle (2000) suggested, this perceived lack of usefulness may have been a major barrier to students' use of the BBS. Another possible explanation for students' differing views about the substance of their classmates postings may be related to students' levels of cognitive maturity. Contemporary theories of adult cognitive development (Baxter Magolda, 1992; King and Kitchener, 1994) suggest that adult students differ about the certainty and sources of knowledge based on their age and years of education. Those in early stages tend to believe that knowledge is objective and held mainly by authority figures. Most students in this course were in their early or mid-twenties and, for the most part, used to instructional approaches where the instructor was the sole source of knowledge. It is also illustrative that graduate students participated more frequently and evenly than undergraduates. Moreover, learners' intentions regarding the acquisition of knowledge and the effort required in that endeavor, as highlighted by Koshmann (1996), should also be considered. Some students are more active than others and enjoy learning challenges in which they have to engage in a process of mental construction. Other students' educational goals are to pass their courses with the least amount of effort. This may explain students' beliefs about the value of their classmates' postings. Those students who put time and effort in writing their ideas online, might have believed that others were doing the same, therefore they valued their input. However, those who just posted anything to get the participation point may have thought other students were doing the same.

Resentment about the participation requirement. As mentioned, over half of the students resented having to communicate with and use different CMC technologies even though a stated objective of the course said it was a combination of both, not to mention the tile of the course. In this regard, one student posted, "I still think that it's kind of weird that a communications class doesn't quite communicate very frequently," to the BBS. Although we do not have enough data to reach any definite conclusion, based on students' biographical data, this appears to have been caused by a mismatch of students' course expectations and the course objectives. For example, some students thought they would learn to design web pages (technical) or have some knowledge about CMC (theoretical). These expectations may have clashed with the actual course objectives and therefore created resentment on the students.

Some students recognized that some kind of incentive was needed to motivate participation. For some, the class requirement helped overcome what Hawisher and Pemberton (1997) describe as the initial inertia that many students experience when faced with an extra burden. It motivated many students to log into the online discussions and participate. However, "being forced" to participate also seems to have hindered the participation of some students who either felt that this requirement detracted from meaningfulness or completely rebelled against the assignment. These results seem to add to the controversy about the need for some type of reinforcement. Should participation in online discussions be graded? Most of the students in the focus group session acknowledged that they participated mainly because participation was a graded assignment. This confirms previous studies' results and recommendations (Hawisher & Pemberton, 1997; Hiltz, 1986) about the need for a reward system to motivate students extrinsically to participate and use CMC. However, as the data show, even the 10% grade was not sufficient to motivate all students to participate. This raises a new question about the proper balance between grade reward and participation, and suggests that it is important to assess the correct balance between grade and effort required from students when designing courses that integrate online discussions. Interestingly, students' overall resentment at being required to participate in online discussions was not evident with regard to any other graded assignments, indicating that their perceptions of teaching environments may have been far more traditional and conservative than we expected from a generation that has grown up with computers. It takes time for students to get used to new teaching/learning approaches. Since online discussions were an innovative activity at the time this study was conducted, students' reactions to this type of assignment may become more positive as online discussions are more regularly incorporated into traditional courses. The issue here is to design strategies for students to "buy into" new learning opportunities.

Time consuming activity. Some students noted lack of time as a reason for not participating more actively, even when they enjoyed the discussions in the BBS. For the online discussions, students had to prepare by reading the assigned weekly material and analyzing the topics before posting their comments. Although in most courses students are expected to prepare for class, we all know that; for the most part, class participation is viewed as "being present." However, in this course, the BBS may have put pressure, at least on some students, to prepare more fully before discussing the course topics. Therefore, it was probably not the online discussions per se that students resented, but the preparation for these discussions.

Lack of validation and ownership. Lack of validation from other students may have affected students' levels of participation and perceptions about the online discussions. Data from the focus group session and the post-questionnaire analysis reveal that a high percentage of students did read other students' postings. However, students tended to reference mainly 1) those messages which topic interested them or where they felt knowledgeable about the subject under discussion; 2) messages that addressed their own previous postings; 3) messages posted by people they knew; and 4) messages with which they disagreed. This tendency to respond only to those entries with which students took issue resulted in many postings receiving no responses. The perceived lack of acknowledgment, coupled with an apparent need for validation, had a deleterious effect on many students' motivation to participate. These findings highlight students' need for a sense of ownership of the task as a precursor to the continued use of CMC, as delineated by Tolmie and Boyle (2000), and to the social component of CMC, suggested by Sturgill, et al. (1999), and O'Reilly and Newton (2001). That some students became much more active members of the BBS only after they had been appointed moderators is further evidence of the need for users to "buy-in" to ownership of the task (Murphy & Mahoney, 2001).

Written apprehension anxiety. Fear of how their postings would be perceived was a major issue for some students, even among those who eventually became active participants. Anxiety over posting something that would make them appear ignorant or foolish as well as apprehension of being attacked by others made some students hesitant about participating in the online discussions. These feelings of inadequacy may have motivated some students to restrict their participation to a minimum or not to participate at all. These findings support Fishman's (1999) claim that written communication apprehension may have a deleterious effect on online participation.

Several course design issues and the overall way in which CMC was integrated may also have colored some students' perceptions about the usefulness of the BBS. The generally loose structure of the course, and of the online discussions in particular, may have increased anxiety in those students who need more structure and guidance creating confusion and anxiety in those students who take longer to adapt to new learning situations. As one student put it, "... I wish I had been told ... 'You will not be told what to do. Unlike your other, lower level classes, you will not be coddled ...' This is something I have learned this semester, primarily from this class." Conditioned by the educational system and their teachers to accept a passive, dependent role, students react with feelings of anxiety and resistance to the realization that this new role requires more work and effort on their part (Mason, 1989). This seems to have been the case in this course where some students expressed feeling anxious about what was expected from them.

In this sense, DeRoma, Martin and Kessler (2003) suggest that it may be important to assess students' tolerance for ambiguity, and to provide training so that students are better prepared for the unstructured elements of a course that promotes critical thinking and parallels the complexities of the real world. In addition, special training to raise students' tolerance for ambiguity may be important, as researchers have theorized an association between tolerance for ambiguity and critical thinking (Furnham, 1995; Facione, Facione & Sanchez, 1994; Johnson, Court, Roersma & Kinnaman, 1995) and the development of integrative independent thinking (Johnson et al., 1995).

In addition, introductory activities to help students buy into the advantages of online discussions as well as group dynamic activities to make the group more cohesive and trusting of each other may also help lower anxieties and the resistance and resentment of using these learning activities.

This study revealed that although computer conferencing has the potential to enhance the learning process, it is not easy to integrate online discussions into traditional learning environments. A number of multidimensional factors affect how students perceive and respond to online discussions. Diverse student characteristics may affect participation in online discussions and more critically students' perceptions about the learning value of such discussions. More challenging is the issue of helping students to change their perceptions about the learning process, viewing it as an active rather than a passive activity.

However, this study also revealed that full participation did result in more frequent activity, lessening of anxieties, increased comfort levels, and increased competence among those students who made the effort to participate and to use the technology, regardless of their attitudes and fears. Giving students the opportunity to become active by assigning them roles in the online discussions (e.g., moderator) may help some to become more active participants as experience helps them become more comfortable with presenting their ideas on the BBS and lower their anxieties. Therefore, providing introductory activities to familiarize students with the use of online discussions as a learning activity may help break their initial resistance and overcome initial negative attitudes.

Implications for Future Research

The findings of this case study indicate that computer conferencing has the potential to increase the level of participation and interaction among students and that it has the capacity to provide a meaningful supplement to regular class discussions. The findings also reveal that student engagement in a social process of knowledge construction is largely dependent on the interaction of several complex factors. Future research should build on these results by exploring one or more of the variables that seem to have affected the process of knowledge construction in the BBS discussions. For example, more research is needed to analyze how learners' attitudes, toward learning in particular, affect their perceptions and participation in online environments. Students' beliefs, goals, and expectations, and their attitudes, back-grounds, and levels of cognitive maturity can affect their quality of thinking and understanding. Thus, further research is needed to analyze what prior knowledge, beliefs, and dispositions students bring with them, and how these variables affect their course experiences and learning outcomes. Finally, future research should include larger, more diverse samples, and should focus on students' attitudes towards and perceptions of cooperative learning environments and learning in general rather than on students' attitudes and expectations towards computer use for class purposes.

References

Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158-174.

Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boeglin, J. A., & Campbell, K. (2002). Effects of learners' readiness on their perceived learning outcomes [Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2).

Butler, W. (1992). The social construction of knowledge in an electronic discourse community. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.

Davidson-Shivers, G., Tanner, E., & Muilenburg, L. (2000, April 26). Online discussions: How do students participate? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

DeRoma, V. M., Martin, K. M., & Kessler, M. L. (2003). The relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and need for course structure. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(2), 104-109.

Ellis, M., & McCreary, E. (1985). The structure of message sequences in computer conferences: A comparative case study. Paper presented at the Workshop on Computer Conferencing and Electronic Messaging, Guelph, Canada.

Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., & Sanchez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent critical judgment: The development of the California critical thinking dispositions inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), 345-350.

Fang, K. (1998). An analysis of electronic-mail usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 349-374.

Fishman, B. J. (1999). Characteristics of students related to computer-mediated communications activity. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 32(1), 73-97.

Fowell, S. P. & Levy, P. (1995). Computer-mediated communication in the information curriculum: An initiative in computer supported collaborative learning. Education for Information, 13, 193-210.

Furnham, A. (1995). The relationship of personality and intelligence to cognitive learning style and achievement. In D.H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds). International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence, NY: Plenum Press.

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.

Hastings, R. (2000). Asynchronous learning from the student perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Monroe Community College, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452 891).

Hawisher, G. & Pemberton, M.A. (1997, March). Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous learning networks or WAC meets up with ALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [online] 1(1). Retrieved January 23, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/index.asp.

Heller, R., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Using a computer BBS for graduate education: Issues and outcomes. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom (Vol. III, pp. 129-137). NJ: Hamptom Press, Inc.

Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction. Making

learning personal, empowering, and successful. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Hiltz, S. (1986). The "Virtual Classroom": Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.

Hiltz, S. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (133-169). NY: Praeger.

Irvine, S. (2000, Feb). What are we talking about? The impact of computer-mediated communication on student learning. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference: Proceedings of SITE. San Diego, CA.

Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (1998, April). Course design, instruction, and students' online behaviors: A study of instructional variables and students' perceptions of online learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421970).

Johnson, H.L., Court, K.L., Roersma, M.H. & Kinnaman, D.T. (1995). Integration as integration: Tolerance of ambiguity and the integrative process at the undergraduate level. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(4), 271-276.

King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Koschmann T. (Ed.) (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm (pp. 83-119). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Latting, J. K. (1994). Diffusion of computer-mediated communication in a graduate social work class: Lessons from "The class from Hell". Computers in Human Services, 10(3), 21-45.

Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najaden papers. (pp. 105-116.). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Murphy, K. L. & Mahoney, S.E. (2001). Buy-in to online courses: Reflections from e-learners' journal papers. In WebNet 2001: World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings, Orlando, FL, October 23-27, 2001.

Newman, D., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C., & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars. Retrieved August 28, 1998 from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1996/nl/newman.htm/contents.html.

Newman, D., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3(2), 56-77.

O'Reilly, M. & Newton, D. (2001). Interaction online: Above and beyond requirements of assessment. In Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Melbourne, Australia.

Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41-68.

Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers and Education, 42, 243-265.

Resta, P. (1995). Project CIRCLE: Student mentors as a strategy for training and supporting teachers in the use of computer-based tools for collaborative learning. Learning Technology Center, College of Education, the University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved November 20, 1999 from http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/resta.html.

Ross, J. A. (1996). The influence of computer communication skills on participation in a computer conference course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(1), 37-52.

Ruberg, L. F., Moore, D. M., & Taylor, C. C. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 243-268.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm (pp. 249-267). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Smith, W. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication: An experiment. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 48(4), 27+.

Sturgill, A., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (1999). Surviving technology: A study of student use of computer-mediated communication to support technology education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5(3), 239-259.

Tergan, S. O. (1997). Misleading theoretical assumptions in hypertext/hypermedia research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 257-283.

Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers and Education, 34(2), 119-140.

Vranesh, R. H. (2002) Recommendations for the use of collaborative learning tools to accommodate divergent student learning styles. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 16(1), 10-14.

Wilson, T., & Whitelock, D. (1998). What are the perceived benefits of participating in a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) environment for distance learning computer science students? Computers & Education, 30(3-4), 259-69.

Wolfradt, U., & Doll, J. (2001). Motives of adolescents to use the Internet as a function of personality traits, personal and social factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 13-27.

Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Dr. Geraldine Gay and Dr. Richard Ripple from Cornell University for their help and sound advice in this research.

JUDITH PENA-SHAFF

Ithaca College, USA

[e-mail]

WILLIAM ALTMAN

Broome Community College, USA

[e-mail]

HUGH STEPHENSON

Ithaca College, USA

[e-mail]

Table 1 Correlations between Pre- and Post-course Measures

                                             1       2      3       4

1. Pre-course Attitudes                     --
2. Post-course attitudes                   .681**   --
3. Expectations of BBS                     .498**  .453*    --
4. Expectations of learning through        .185    .314    .620**   --
   online discussions
5. Perception of BBS                       .126    .369*   .219    .266
6. Perceptions of learning through online  .067    .372*  -.043    .210
   discussions
7. Participation (# of messages posted)    .092    .119   -.072    .014
8. Perceived participation                 .258    .270    .197    .219

                                             5       6      7

1. Pre-course Attitudes
2. Post-course attitudes
3. Expectations of BBS
4. Expectations of learning through
   online discussions
5. Perception of BBS                        --
6. Perceptions of learning through online  .689**   --
   discussions
7. Participation (# of messages posted)    .346    .286    --
8. Perceived participation                 .459*   .436*  .689**

* p < .05 **p < .01