Student Perceptions: Agents of Interaction in Distance Classes.

Abstract

The use of ethnographic research methods to explore graduate students' perceptions of interactive televised distance classes showed a connection between students' perceptions and students' patterns of interaction as they related to learner-learner interaction, learner-content interaction, and learner-instructor interaction. Students' traditional place in the social structure of the classroom was changed by the technologically mediated environment in a way that redefined membership of the class and threatened interaction both within and across sites.

Introduction

The social interactions that occur within classrooms have been an important component of American education since the 18th century (Cremin-1980). The symbiotic relationship between the social structure of the classroom and interaction in the classroom enabled classrooms to function effectively (Metz-1978).

The traditional school social structure evolved in a shared physical space. The advent of distance education, however, changes the spatial element of the social structure of classrooms and raises the question, "How do students re-formulate their understanding of classroom social structure when the physical structure is changed in a manner that the four walls of the room no longer de/me membership in its social structure?" Literature identifies immediacy (Hackman & Walker-1990), power (hooks-1994), student satisfaction (Comeaux- 1995), and gender (Eder-1995) as affective components of social structure and consequential interactive patterns in classes. However, little attention has been given to the affective components of students' perceptions as significant factors in classroom interaction. Often, in fact, student perceptions are left out of the loop entirely (Parr-1999), given after the fact in the form of student evaluations, or based on non-interactional feedback like surveys or written short answer responses where lack of time to respond and superficial responses often skew the data (O'Malley & McCraw-1999).

This study used ethnographic methodology to gain in-depth and interactional feedback from participants about their perceptions of interaction in a distance-learning environment. They were better able to reflect on their classroom experiences because the familiarity, the culturally based taken-for-granted nature (Henry-1963) of traditional classrooms, was disturbed by the technological mediation of classroom dynamics. Moreover, the separation of the class into "home" and "distant" sites further disrupted familiar notions of what constituted "our class" and generated feelings of "us" and "them." The distant perspective allowed us to identify students' perceptions of their learning environment that acted as an active agent in establishing interaction in distance classes.

Method

Data used in this essay was gathered during a one-year ethnographic study of the inaugural year of an interactive, video-based, 2-site, distance classroom called the Interactive Distance Learning Studio (IDLS). Traditional qualitative and ethnographic research methods (Maxwell-1996) were used to explore student perceptions of their experiences in the IDLS. Symbolic interactionism (Prus-1996) and cultural anthropology (Geertz-1973) provided the theoretical framework for the research. During one year of fieldwork, 278 students in 13 graduate courses were observed, videotaped, and considered in the data gathering process. Student interviews, focus groups, surveys, email correspondence, videotapes, and personal conversations were valuable sources of data. Routine debriefings between ethnographers enhanced data analysis. Student quotations were selected as being representative of perspectives of a significant number of the participants.

Class Membership

One of the issues that surfaced early in our data gathering process was related to how students defined "class membership." Academically, membership was defined by class schedules that required all students in a given IDLS class to meet at the same time with the same instructor to study the same subject even if they were in different locations. Such an academic definition, however, did not translate into a defined social structure that included all students as equal or like participants in the class. Moreover, it often spawned two separate and competitive groups with distinct ideas about their own group, as well as the other group. Groups formed as a result of students' perceptions of the people they shared a room with and those they did not.

Our initial awareness of the variance in student perceptions regarding what constituted membership in the IDLS classes surfaced early in our data gathering when responses varied to the question, "How many students are in your class?" Students differed in their thoughts on what was meant by "in your class." One student commented, "Thirteen or fourteen because I would only be dealing with the people sitting in this room" (RFt-F-I-p222.124-data identifier, see references), while another asked, "In our class, counting [the other site]?" (HP-F-I-p206.902) and still another commented "Forty that equals 25 distant and 15 host" (RP-M-Q8-16). Each comment is representative of a group of students - some who were unsure who was part of their class, others who were certain it was just the people at their site, and still others who claimed that the class included students from both sites.

Exploration of students' ideas about membership in "their" site and membership in the "other" site showed a connection between perceptions and the way they related to their peers. These ideas about membership applied both within and across sites and affected student interactions on three levels - learner-learner interaction, learner-content interaction, and learner-instructor interaction. This paper addresses the way in which student perceptions influenced behavior and class interaction at both the home and remote sites.

The Data

Remote Student Perceptions

By definition being a student in the remote site meant that one did not have the instructor in the physical space that one occupied on a weekly basis as the class convened. Remote students' perceptions of being part oft hat group frequently included an awareness of the support they found among their fellow sitemates. Marci put it this way.

   We felt like we were on our own. We were going to have to figure this stuff
   out. We had already met before the class started. We knew where we were
   having our problems and what we wanted to ask, so one person asked the
   questions. [...] It just took the one brave person to ask.
   (RFt-F-I-v811.850)

Remote students sensed a "type of solitude" (RFt-M-Q7-w3.40) that they countered by working together. Comments of students supported the findings of previous research that have shown that students at distance sites often form a class within a class (Major & Shane, 1991) developing a "kindred spirit" (Souder- 1993, p. 45) or a "spirit of collaboration" (Thach & Murphy-1994, p. 8). However, a lesser-reported interesting side effect of the collaboration was that in many cases it helped to balance the resentment students developed when their perception was that the host site was getting support from the professor that they at the remote site were not privy to.

In a focus group interview, several students at the remote site expanded upon this dimension of their perception of learner-instructor interaction and what it meant to be a part of the remote site.

Ben: It [being at the remote site] was awful in that class. She [the instructor] would walk around the class [the host site] while the camera was on her and we'd see her mingling.

Meg: And talking.

Ben: And talking.

Paul: And helping their understanding and we are over here going, "Uh, oh well." We helped each other understand and work through. I think that's why we work so well is because we have to. (RFt-M/F-FG-0.i.0.982)

The perception was that they were at a disadvantage because the host site received direct instructions that the remote site did not. However, they turned their perceived disadvantage into a perceived advantage by engaging with each other in ways that they had previously not done in their traditional classes. Learner-learner interaction within the distant site was enhanced as a reaction to their perception that learner-instructor interaction was less for them than for their counterparts.

It is important to note that though students' perceptions from one site might be quite different from those at the other site, it was their perception that spurred them on to action. In short, their perception became their reality and they acted upon it. These perceptions not only changed the way they interacted with students in their own remote site, they also changed the way they interacted with students from the host site.

Jeri remembered an incident in which she admitted her behavior as well as that of her sitemates toward a student from the other site was unacceptable:

   I really felt an us against them thing going on. And you know, I am more
   critical of people in [the other site] than I am about people in [my site].
   I'm in [the remote site] and because we are here and they are there, well,
   you know. [I remember one night we formed groups and a visitor from the
   host site sitting in our remote classroom] asked, "Have you thought of
   being in a group with someone from [the host site]?" We all looked at her
   like that was the most preposterous suggestion anyone could have made, of
   course we're not going to be partners with someone in [the host site]. That
   is the other team. [...] We weren't going to entertain it, we didn't. [...]
   It's personal. (RFt-F-I-vl7)

Remote student perceptions of the host student's visit was that it was an intrusion. They did not listen to her. Their perception of the student, simply because she was from the host site, made a difference in the social structure of the class and in turn, negatively affected the treatment of a fellow classmate whom they had only encountered previously via the television. Potential positive learner-learner interaction was stifled because of one group's constructed perceptions of the other. Jeri's story illustrates one way that student perceptions can intensify to a level that negatively affects in-class interaction.

The issue was compounded when we found that not only does the perception impact the interaction, but on occasion the interaction actually transformed the perception. In questionnaires that were distributed during the second and third semester, some of the returning remote students who had originally felt that it was a good idea to connect across campuses had changed their minds. Meredith was one of those students. "Now I'd just as soon not be part of their community" (RFt-F-Q8-6.30). After participating in and witnessing learner-learner interaction between the host and remote site, Meredith no longer saw a need to accept the host students into the "community" of her classroom. Her perceptions propagated negative attitudes across sites that potentially set the groups up for unhealthy competition (Shrewsbury-1998).

Some students from a different class actually approached a host site student, Jenny, about feelings they had towards her fellow sitemates. Jenny shared this with me:

   The judgment of the [remote site] group has been quite interesting. Because
   I know them [through other classes] they say, "Hey, you guys, [host site]
   you look like you're really angry, or you're bored, like you guys don't
   like each other in the class." And I said, "No, we're fine." And they said,
   "Well, you guys don't look that way, I mean, we're having fun over here,
   and you guys aren't, I don't know." (HP-F-I-p4.13)

Remote site students' negative perceptions of the students at the other site were often strong and affected both learner-learner interaction and learner-content interaction. Joey put it this way.

   When I'm up in the front and doing a presentation, I feel like I am under
   attack from [host site]. I can't give you specific reasons. [...] I don't
   want to say that they have animosity; I just don't feel like we have
   developed a rapport of any kind with that class [other site] at all. It's
   intimidating to stand up there, not in front of my group, but in front of
   them [other site], [...] well; it's almost like an attack. (RFt-M-FG-vl6)

With the traditional leader of the class, the teacher, absent from their classroom space, remote students were left alone to rely on their own interpretations of what they heard and what they saw other classmates do and say. Consequently, they learned to rely on the social interaction they had with students in their space to provide the validation, support, and in some instances, teaching that they traditionally received from the instructor. Further, their perceptions promoted the "us" against "them," "our site"/ "your site," "you have" and "we don't," vocabulary that propagated interactions that were detrimental to the collaboration of students across sites.

Host student perceptions

Host students spoke of the ways the technology influenced how they thought of their class in the IDLS. It meant that they would not get as much content covered as in the traditional setting (HP-F-Q2-w6.9), that time would be taken up by the technology (HP-M-Q2-w4.36), and that the instructor would not be able to give undivided attention to the class because of the technological tasks that must be attended to (HP-M-Q6-o5.1). Even though the technology was thought of as the impetus for changes in the classroom, students at the host site still felt that as long as they had the instructor, they were better off than the remote students (HP-F-I-p185.2.24.333) and that they could succeed (HP-F-I-v 12.20). Many host students believed that they would not make it as remote students. Often students reported a type of pity towards them:

   Sometimes I feel sorry for them [remote students]. I tend to sympathize
   with them because I feel like they aren't getting the experience that we
   [host students] are getting. I am sure they [remote students] are, but
   sometimes I feel like, "Gosh we got the teacher here and you don't." I feel
   like we [host students] have an advantage over them. (HP-F-I-p2.24)

In the same way that remote students perceived themselves as "disadvantaged," host students perceived themselves as "advantaged."

Many host students made generalizations about remote students based on their perception of certain subgroups or individuals. The individuals or subgroups singled out were either perceived as dominant class participants (HFt-M-I-v4.450), individuals of a different ethnic background (HFt-F-I-1552), or individuals whose behavior, posture, and/or appearance brought them to the attention of the host students (HP-F-Ip206a.972). When there was a subgroup perceived as dominant in the remote site, students at the host site often transferred the image of that group to the entire class. One of the host site students, Margie, made that transference definitively until questioned about it.

Margie: Those people are idiots over there.

Intrvr: Tell me how you really feel, Margie.

Margie: I don't like those people. Those people don't have a clue what's going on in the real world. They all said one thing and we all went nuts.

Intrvr: Is it the whole class over there that acts that way?

Margie: No. There's just a couple of people. [...] There's a few of them whose perspectives are a little skewed. There's three or four of them that comes up with stuff and I'm going, "Oh My God. What are you people doing in there?" (RFt-F-I-s 10.4)

One of the interesting things about the comments host students made regarding individuals at the remote site was that, at times, host students used their perceptions to adjust their own behaviors in the IDLS: "His posture reminded me [to improve my posture]" (HP-F-I-202p), "I try not to sit like that" (HP-F-I-p206a), "I thought, `I do not want to be like her' "(HP-F-I-m105). Host and remote students allowed their perceptions to guide their actions with very little critical appraisal of their own perceptions.

Conclusions

We know that classroom tension and negative feelings that result from students' biased judgements or negative perceptions of other students can have adverse effects on teaching and on learning (hooks-1994). It was our observation that student relations in the IDLS, developed based on student perceptions that had been shaped in significant measure by the technological mediation in the classroom. Relations both within and across sites affected student performance in and attitude toward classes in the IDLS. Students' perceptions of other students in their class sometimes restricted and other times enhanced their own involvement in the class. Those perceptions also affected their willingness to interact with other students. According to research on distance education, the interaction students have with other students affects their levels of satisfaction with a course (Comeaux-1995; Hackman & Walker-1990), their understanding of course material (Kantor-1996), and their willingness to participate in class activities (Gant-1996). Therefore, it is important that the perceptions of students in learning environments be intentionally explored and attended to in a manner that can enhance the understanding, respect, and tolerance for students at both sites and improve the classroom social structure so as to maximize teaching and learning.

References

Comeaux, P. (1995). The impact of an interactive distance-learning network on classroom communication. Communication Education, 44 (4) 353-361.

Cremin, L. A. (1980). American education: The national experience 1783-1876. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Eder, D. (1997). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Gant, L. P. (1996, February). Lessons in developing distance-learning. Performance and Instruction, 35 (2), 22-25.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. London: Perseus.

Hackman, M. A., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39 (3) 196-206.

Henry, J. (1963). Culture against man. New York: Random House.

Hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.

HP-M-Q8-16. H-host student, P-location code, M-male, Q-questionnaire data, 8-response code, 16-location of statement.

Major, M. B., & Shane, D. L. (1991). Use of interactive television for outreach nursing education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5 (1), 51-56.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interpretive approach. In Applied Social Research Methods Series (41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

O'Malley, J. & McCraw, H. (1999, Winter). Students perceptions of distance-learning, online-learning and the traditional classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2 (4) [On-line]. Available: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/omalley24.html [2001, February 3].

Parr, J. M. (1999). Going to school the technological way: Co-constructed classrooms and student perceptions of learning with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20 (4) 365-377.

Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. New York: State University of New York Press.

Shrewsbury, C. M. (1998). What is feminist pedagogy? In M. F. Rogers (Ed.), Contemporary feminist theory (pp. 167-171). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Souder, W. E. (1993). The effectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three management of technology master's degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (1), 37-53.

Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1994). Collaboration in distance education: From local to international perspectives. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3),5-22.

Lorraine C. Schmertzing, Valdosta State University, GA Richard W. Schmertzing, Valdosta State University, GA.

L.C. Schmertzing, Ed.D., is an Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology. She has focused her research on graduate students in distance-learning environments. R.W. Schmertzing, Ed.D., is a qualitative researcher on graduate research faculty who combines a longstanding interest in classroom culture with more recent interests in research in the area of educational technology.