Students and instructors online: a case study.

Abstract

This paper examines student and instructor perspectives of online course issues. Qualitative data of student and instructor perceptions of online experiences help illuminate issues and identify discrepancies between both perspectives that are indiscernible when presented independently of the other perspective. The analysis explores several inconsistencies and suggests way to improve the student/instructor online environment.

Introduction

As more universities incorporate the use of web-based courses in their programs, studies continue to emerge focusing on either student or instructor perceptions and experiences in online environments. While comparative studies of student and instructor perceptions in online courses are limited, they are sorely needed to understand the implications of online environments from multiple perspectives. This study sought to address this gap in the literature. The data and resulting knowledge generated by these comparative studies can improve experiences for students and instructors alike in this growing instructional medium.

Purpose of the Study

This qualitative study explored both instructor and student experiences and perceptions of a WebCT [1] course with the goal of gaining a richer and deeper understanding of this context. (This study was a component of an exploratory mixed-methods study--quantitative/qualitative--conducted in the spring of 2003 to develop a survey instrument to examine the pedagogical dimensions of web-based instruction.) This paper reports the findings of one case study from the students' and the instructor's perspectives of five areas: choosing WebCT, learning to use WebCT, goals and expectations for using WebCT, and the pros and cons of using WebCT. [2]

Methodology

Considering the exploratory nature of this research, a case study approach was utilized. Wainwright (1997) describes qualitative research as "the attempt to obtain an in-depth understanding of the meanings and definitions of the situation" (p.1); in this instance, the experiences of instructor and students in online environments are studied. Case studies are useful in understanding a particular problem or unique situation, particularly one in which the participants' understandings and perceptions are of primary importance (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In addition, case studies are ideally suited to examining issues related to web-based instruction (Windschitl, 1998). This case study consisted of a semi-structured interview with an instructor and a focus group interview with ten of her students. The instructor interview and student focus group interview each took about two hours to complete. All interviews, individual and group, were audio recorded and then transcribed. Data analysis involved coding the transcripts by topic areas. For the instructor, the interview consisted of questions covering general and specific topics related to her online experiences. The general component explored the instructor's reasons for moving online, her steps involved in transitioning to this environment, the technical and instructional support she received during the course, her perceptions of how the online component impacted the way she taught, her perceptions of how web-based instruction impacted her students, and lessons learned--what she would do differently next time. The specific component of the study elicited responses concerning online tools, the ones she used in the course as well as the ones she chose not to use.

Focus group interviews are a strategy employed to collect data through group interactions on a researcher-driven topic (Morgan, 1997). They are considered a highly efficient qualitative data-collection technique where people can consider their own views in the context of others (Patton, 1990). These forms of interviews provide some data collection quality controls, as participants tend to quickly weed out false or extreme views. Similar to the instructor's interview, the group interview with students covered both general and specific topics. The general component related to the students' experiences and perceptions of the online environment, the impact of using WebCT on their learning in the course, and their opinions of their instructor's teaching in this environment. The specific nature of the interview provided students with opportunities to discuss the use of online tools.

Context

This study was conducted in the spring of 2003 in a College of Education (COE) of a large research institution in the Southeastern United States. At that time, approximately 10% of all COE instructors were using WebCT in their courses--only a small minority of these instructors was employing WebCT in a pure distance education model (offering their courses completely online). Most Education instructors were using a blended or integrated approached involving a mix of delivery methods. That is, these courses were primarily taught face-to-face and WebCT was utilized for asynchronous and synchronous learning events to support and enhance classroom activities. One Education instructor and her students were selected for this case study. Mary (a pseudonym), was the instructor for a required undergraduate course in reading education for middle-school preservice students. Mary chose to use WebCT to supplement her weekly class sessions. This was Mary's first exposure and experience with WebCT. There were twenty-seven students enrolled in her course. Most students in her course were juniors with a small number of sophomores, and all students were working toward their Bachelor of Science in Education degree. All of the students were asked to participate in this study; ten students volunteered to take part.

Data Analysis

This section explores the thematic analysis of the students' and the instructor's perspectives juxtaposed to capture both similarities and differences in their respective experiences. Five areas related to WebCT use are investigated.

Choosing WebCT

This was Mary's first exposure and use of WebCT for instruction. She selected WebCT based on her colleagues' positive comments and suggestions that the program is flexible and efficient. She stated: "They told ... you can use it as much or as little as you want or need ... so that kind of flexibility drew me." Students favored the use of WebCT, but believed their instructor chose WebCT out of department pressure or peer pressure (since many other courses were using it). All ten students involved in this focus-group interview had previous experiences with WebCT.

Learning to Use WebCT

The instructor chose three tools to use within her course--the grade tool, the syllabus tool, and the discussions tool. She indicated that she did not want to be overwhelmed by choosing and attempting to utilize too many tools, but wanted to start on a smaller scale and build from there:

   I haven't incorporated all that I could. I knew that. I mean I knew
   that there was a lot ore out there, but I didn't want to know about
   it because it was overload learning, you know. I couldn't learn
   about all that at one time, I had to start slowly ... I do want to
   implement this, but I want to implement this at a reasonable level
   ... So, my thinking was okay ... let me just start slowly and get
   started, and then just add to that.

Her approach on deciding which tools to include was to find a few activities she wanted to include in her course and then to see if there were appropriate tools to facilitate those activities. She solicited the assistance of an instructional designer to help her find the appropriate matches:

   I went in and I said literally, to Linda (the instructional
   designer) but I had already formulated these in my mind, that I want
   to have a place to post the grades. I think that would be the most
   efficient thing. I want to have a place where students can dialogue

   with each other, comment back to each other, see each other's view
   points, see the strategies that they're using with their students,
   etc., and read about those ... they can comment back and forth to
   each other, and then a place to just house the syllabus. I didn't
   know if tools existed for all this.

Although Mary's goal and initial reasons for moving to an online environment were typical, her process of tool selection was not. Mary had ideas of what activities she wanted to try online with the goal of efficiency without being too overwhelmed. Mary then solicited Linda's help, who chose the appropriate WebCT tools to support Mary's desired activities. This was an unusual approach. Instructors generally look at the options and possibilities available with WebCT and then match appropriate course activities to the appropriate tools and often introduce some new activities based on a new awareness of possible options. Many times, exposure to these tools enlightens instructors to new and fresh perspectives, ideas, and opportunities, leading them to try different ways of instructing, facilitating and supporting student learning. In Mary's case, her options were limited to the activities she knew were possible in a traditional classroom and to what she had heard from others regarding online courses.

Mary was aware of a variety of WebCT workshops available at her institution, but she preferred to have someone come and show her how to use WebCT on her own computer. She met Linda, an instructional designer from the WebCT support group who provided one-on-one training. Mary stated she knew there were other support people and online resources available but indicated Linda's assistance was ample support for her. She reported that she was not familiar with the university WebCT student support resources, nor did she know exactly what support was available for instructors. Eight out of ten of the students in this focus group reported they learned to use WebCT simply by exploring it on their own (in previous semesters). Students were asked to rate their ability to use the tools and navigate within the WebCT environment on a scale of 1-10. One represented the lowest ability and ten the highest. All students self-rated themselves at a 10. Students talked about their instructor learning to use WebCT in this course as well as in other courses:

   I think before teachers or students get impacted by WebCT, the
   teachers need a severe crash course on how to use it. I don't
   think hardly any teachers know how use it productively ... or how
   it relates to their class specifically. Where am I going to use
   this? ... In what ways would it be beneficial for the students and
   for me, and I think we need to think about it a little bit.

Prior knowledge put students at a considerable advantage over the instructor in terms of the tools available and effective applications of the tools. As a result, many of the students were critical of their instructor's first attempt at using WebCT. Understandably, many of them compared this WebCT experience to previous courses involving WebCT that students claimed tended to be much more complex and effective. Students provided several examples of other courses and a few from this course of how instructors were not using a particular online tool effectively or appropriately.

Students reported they were not usually successful when trying to get help or support for WebCT-related problems when contacting the instructor directly but would have some success when e-mailing the WebCT company-based support desk.

WebCT Goals and Expectations

The instructor had two clear expectations in implementing WebCT--efficiency and expanded communication:

   My expectations were more efficiency for the class, and my
   expectations were expanded communication for the class, and yes,
   I mean I've met that ... In terms of deciding on my goals, I was
   just thinking how to make my courses better, how to ... just
   reflecting on my teaching now, and things that I thought that I
   needed to improve on, would liked to have improved on, and those
   were just two areas, so I thought this was a way to help me do that.

In addition, she indicated that her experience with WebCT was very positive and that she planned to implement the online environment at deeper levels in future courses, although her goals would remain the same:

   I can see ways I can do even more ... my goals really won't change
   even if I add more tools. I'm looking for ways to make the class run
   more efficiently, and more effectively, and to enhance
   communication. So those goals really I don't see changing much.

Efficiency, expanded communication, and simplicity (fear of being overwhelmed) were driving forces for her in using and selecting tools in WebCT. Anecdotal data shows that this is typical for most instructors venturing to online environments for the first time--their adoption and implementation of online systems are not driven by pedagogical issues (Morgan, 2003; Freeman & Abeygunawardena, 2002). These goals influenced her limited selection of tools within the course. Although these decisions may have been quite logical to Mary, it put her out of sync with her students' needs and desires. On several occasions during the interview, students commented on how disappointed they were with the limited number of tools in this course.

Mary's application of the discussion tool represented a shift of her role from instructor to guide--students were now providing comments and feedback to each other. Previously, Mary was the only individual reading and commenting on students' work and reflections. This represented a change in Mary's teaching. Mary did acknowledge this transition, reflecting that using this tool this way "gives you a different way to think about how to teach." She could have used this tool to perpetuate the current structure for this activity but chose to try something different that proved profitable in terms of student learning. Students confirmed that being able to read, reflect, and provide feedback on their peers' comments was a valuable learning experience for them.

In a study involving three universities in Canada, Freeman and Abeygunawardena (2002) found "that while instructors are predominantly attracted to the web-based tools for their potential to streamline course management and administration tasks ... there appears to be some resulting shifts in pedagogical approaches" (p.1). In a large-scale study that included 15 institutions from the University of Wisconsin University System, Morgan (2003) found similar results:

   Faculty using course management systems ... look to a CMS to provide
   them with organization tools. But in the process of using these
   tools, many faculty members begin to rethink and restructure their
   courses and ultimately their teaching. The end result is a sort of
   "accidental pedagogy" (p. 4).

Collis (1997) refers to this concept as "pedagogical engineering"--the change in online pedagogy that occurs as an instructor becomes more versed with the potentials of the environment moving them from a teacher-centered approach to one focused on learner activity.

Disadvantages of Using WebCT

The instructor could not cite any disadvantages she experienced in using WebCT: "It's hard to think of disadvantages. I mean I really don't see any ... I can't think of any limitations."

Mary's comment needs to be put in perspective: Mary was new to WebCT and was using only three WebCT tools in a limited capacity. There are more than thirty WebCT tools available that could be used in a multitude of ways and complexities and may very well present disadvantages for other instructors, particularly if used inappropriately.

Students indicated that their dissatisfaction with the WebCT component in this course was due primarily to their instructor's failure to use the WebCT tools effectively. From their experiences with more sophisticated uses of WebCT in other courses, students were aware of the possibilities of the online tools selected for this course and the range of uses for other tools. This could have been an excellent opportunity for a role reversal--the students could have helped inform the design and format of the online component of the course and assisted the instructor in its implementation. Students claimed that although they were appreciative that the instructor chose to use WebCT with this course, their instructor's inexperience with this environment led to a number of frustrating experiences for them. Adding to this frustration, students mentioned the lack of consistency in the process of turning in assignments:

   I just wish instructors would have you do either none of the work
   on WebCT, or some of it on WebCT. Because like even with this class,
   some work is done on WebCT. One week your reflection is on WebCT,
   one week she wants you to email it to her, the next week it's
   something else ... It's so confusing ... okay, do I need to email it
   to her this week, or do I need to post it?

Mary was clearly attempting to become familiar with the online environment. Implementing the online tools in small doses allowed her to do that. Unfortunately, her slow introduction of the online tools and her inconsistent use of them, coupled with the students' advanced WebCT skills and knowledge, proved frustrating and ineffective for many of the students.

Advantages of Using WebCT

Mary did provide specific examples of how the tools she selected benefited her students and herself. She mentioned efficiency many times when talking about the tools; she stated using WebCT was organizationally easier. Flexibility is another term she used with the tools;. she liked being able to use the tools in the ways she wanted to. Mary reported that this course was mostly paperless. She added that this fact was efficient and cost-effective for the students since they did not have to make copies of their work to turn in. In addition, Mary stated that she was happy that she did not have to carry multiple copies of the syllabus and other materials that she posted online. Students stated that they found the primary advantages of having WebCT were the convenience of having "access to your whole class 24 hours a day," "being able to do work at any time or turning it in at any time," and being able to e-mail your peers through WebCT at any time (although this course did not incorporate the WebCT e-mail tool). The students specifically mentioned the advantage of having the selected tools within this course--being able to check grades periodically, and particularly access to the discussions tool: "I really enjoyed having the discussions open, and being able to click in it at any time, and being able to participate and see what your peers thought." Some students felt the syllabus tool online was simply a matter of convenience for the instructor, saving her the time and cost of photocopying and passing the expense on to them.

Discussion and Conclusion

There were clearly inconsistencies between Mary's and her students' perceptions regarding a number of experiences in the online component of her course. Fortunately, with deliberate planning and careful consideration, most of these discrepancies can be adequately addressed, and this type of analysis can lead to advance planning and organization that could reduce problems in the future. The instructor in this course did not have a systematic method for transitioning to an online environment, nor was one presented to her. There was no evidence of a planning process, nor use of a framework for a well designed course, nor discussion of any pedagogical approach guiding the use of online tools within her course. Admittedly, this was her first attempt at using WebCT.

Instructors need to be exposed to exemplary courses in a variety of disciplines and content areas showing them the possibilities and new ways of doing things as well as modeling best practices and strategies online. Information and/or discussions on pedagogically oriented workshops on effectively creating online courses, the implications of online learning and pedagogy, online transitioning steps, effective procedures for planning and storyboarding your course, and evaluation models for online courses would be helpful resources to instructors who are new to this environment. Students reported experiencing a number of problems related to accessing the online course and posting content. The instructor and most students were unaware of all of the WebCT support resources available to them. Mary was unaware that there was WebCT online student documentation as well as WebCT student support available via e-mail and phone for students experiencing problems. She was also unaware of what WebCT help resources were available to instructors. As new instructors venture into online courses with WebCT, it is imperative for their success and the success of their students that they be made aware of all the support resources and options available to instructors and students.

The institution provided comprehensive WebCT support services for students and instructors via e-mail, phone, and in person through the campus computer labs and help desks. Although this information is available online on the WebCT homepage, these students and this instructor did not access it. Placing all this information online is based on the false assumption that instructors and students are generally proactive and will find and access the information that they need online. This case study indicates that this is not happening with everyone. An alternative needs to be provided.

One suggestion would be to provide instructors with a package of information when they register for a new WebCT course. This package could include student information, such as WebCT orientation handouts; "cheat sheets" or "job aids" for WebCT-related activities and tasks; information about logging on, passwords, minimum browser requirements, and plug-ins needed; FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions); a list of all the help options available; troubleshooting information; etc. Instructor information also needs to be included, such as the implications of online learning and pedagogy, online transitioning processes, procedures for planning and storyboarding your course, evaluation models for online courses, help options for instructor, exemplary courses, etc. Simply pointing people to online resources does not work for many, especially for those who are new to the online environment. Providing students and instructors with hardcopies of available resources is a viable alternative to posting the information online, especially for those instructors and students who may not go online on their own initiative to locate the information they need.

Another possibility would be to "bundle" this important information in a WebCT links tool and include it as a default in every WebCT course. When students and instructors log into their course, they would find a link entitled "Help" on their course homepage and on the course menu. Clicking on the link would yield a wealth and variety of relevant information and resources for students and instructors. In this case study, students were more experienced than their instructor in this online environment. In spite of this fact, students were not asked for input into the design and format of the course. There was no formal process in place to get student input. Mary indicated that she verbally asked students for suggestions, improvements, etc. for the online component of her course and that she generally received positive student comments. Assured of anonymity in the focus-group interviews, students told a different story in their discussions; they stated they were reluctant to offer suggestions and input to their instructor directly. During the focus group interviews, students shared valuable ideas and suggestions on how best to utilize WebCT to support teaching and learning and on what changes to implement to better support instruction in their course.

The WebCT survey tool is an anonymous and useful method for the instructor to receive important student feedback about their experiences during the course and at the course's conclusion. The resulting information could be invaluable in redesigning courses to ensure they meet student needs.

As with any case study, the insights presented here are not meant to be generalizable but do contribute to a greater understanding of this topic. However, although this research is unique to this setting and context, the findings are supported by other anecdotal reports in the literature (Freeman & Abeygunawardena, 2002; Morgan, 2003). The case and situation presented in this paper, where the students were more knowledgeable than the instructor in the online environment, is not unusual as instructors are compelled to include online components to their classroom sessions in increasing number regardless of their comfort level or experience with this environment. The instructor's initial decision and process of starting with a few online tools to assist in the administration and clerical tasks was also typical. Through this initial experience, the instructor began the process of pedagogically orienting the course to a more student-centered environment. Implementing these online tools on a smaller scale allowed Mary to feel comfortable and gain some experience in this environment, and ultimately encouraged her to experiment and discuss the inclusion of additional online tools in future courses. With more experience, appropriate training, and the solicitation of informal and formal (anonymous) feedback from students in her course, Mary can further her use of these tools and additional tools to support and extend student learning in the online environment.

This study was unique in exploring both student and instructor perspectives, identifying the discrepancies and offering recommendations to help bridge these differences. The study improves on past studies which typically focused on one perspective (but not both) and therefore provided a limited understanding of the problem. Further research is warranted in this area. A clearer and deeper understanding of the distinct online issues from student and instructor perspectives will help inform online pedagogical practices and aid in developing robust and pedagogically sound online environments the optimize the experiences of both students and instructors.

Endnotes

[1] WebCT is a web-based course management system (CMS) used by many higher education institutions to manage and deliver online instruction.

[2] The qualitative data generated in the study encompassed a greater range of topics and involved three separate cases; due to space limitations, only five areas and one case were chosen and used for this paper.

References

Collis, B. (1997). Pedagogical reengineering: A pedagogical approach to course enrichment and redesign with the www. Educational Technology Review, 8, 11-15.

Freeman, W. E., & Abeygnnawardena, H. (2002). Faculty and student reflections on using web tools to support undergraduate classroom-based instruction across faculties. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2002.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. (Second ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems key findings. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR). Retrieved June 22, 2004 from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar_so/ers/ERSO302/ekfO302.pdf

Wainright, D. (1997). Can sociological research be qualitative? The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Retrieved June 22, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/wain.html

Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and classroom research: What path should we take? Educational Researcher, 27(1), 28-33.

Marwin Britto, Central Washington University, WA

Marwin Britto is an assistant professor and Director of the Educational Technology Center. He received his Ph.D. (in Instructional Technology) from the University of Georgia.