This life in WebCT.

Abstract

For several years, I was almost exclusively the traditional student. At the same time, I also benefited from evening and weekend college course offerings. Over the last year, however, I became acquainted with WebCT, the learning resource for online classes. Through my experiences with WebCT, and as a result of the classes I took (Science and Ethics, Logic, Modern Logical Analysis, Art Appreciation, Fundamental Concepts of Information and Computer Technology, Beginning Italian), I have a better basis for understanding the developments that have taken place in WebCT, as well as the experiential techniques that make online learning relatable to traditional classroom learning. In fact, this Spring 2003 I am taking a traditional class that requires participation in WebCT as an additional tool for learning.

First, a Dialogue Between the Student and Her Professor

Vanessa Raney, VR. If you give me some direction, good material and a challenge, then, yeah, I make a great student--even with your online Science and Ethics class. I learned a lot from you because you demanded my active participation, posted interesting links and gave exams that were both objective and subjective. More important, your class was structured more like a traditional class. However, I've also had professors who don't really push you to learn, or who just stick to the subject material they cover in class. That's really frustrating sometimes.

Madeleine Pepin, MP. Yes, but you've confused "the way I like to learn things" and "enjoyable-less enjoyable" with learning styles and teaching effectiveness.

VR. Yeah, but you were really great! Of course, I had trouble taking you for Logic and then Modern Logical Analysis online. I think part of it was that I couldn't see what you were doing, and the textbook was a little hard to follow. I probably would've done a lot better in a traditional class, because then I could've asked you questions or at least followed what you were saying.

MP. I disagree. On logic and modern logical analysis--you wouldn't have done better by hearing or seeing it--in a once-a-week format, I doubt that you'd have even passed. Your problem with those subjects is that you rely on your very high verbal comprehension, and verbal comprehension isn't the skill/ability they call for. They're analysis subjects, are primarily visual, and are constructed piece by piece. You like to grasp wholes, then look at details later--preferably as a result of discussion. And, you like to do nothing for several days, then dive in, straggle, and "surface." These are learning strategies, not what is meant by "learning styles." The difficulty with them has little to do with WebCT and a whole lot to do with a preferred learning strategy that is inappropriate to those subjects. You passed because the WebCT format forced you to go step by step and to treat the text as a manual rather than "a book." Face-to-face, you'd have driven both of us and the rest of the class crazy and still not passed with a C.

As for what is meant by "learning styles"--I do encounter students who really have to "hear"--they just don't process written material. But you're not one of them--you process written material very well so long as comprehension of the whole rather than step by step construction is the appropriate tactic. What you mean by "hearing" is that you like intense discussion and argument on some substantive argument--but that doesn't happen in logic in any format.

I also encounter students who really have to "see"--they need graphics and animation. But you aren't one of them; it is difficult to even get you to look at Power Points, videos, etc. You have no patience with visual media--they are too "cool." ("Cool" media present info. slowly and sparsely; "hot" media--books, debate, etc.--present info. rapidly and densely.) You'd have been even more impatient with a teacher writing on a blackboard. Again, verbal comprehension and immersion are your preferred learning strategies.

Science and Ethics fit "the way you like to learn" very well, and so you enjoyed it and did very well. But, my judgment is that WebCT wasn't the most effective way to teach that course to you--you'd have learned must more through interactive discussion, face-to-face presentation, and debate. The WebCT version consistently results in considerably less development of skills in ethical analysis than the face-to-face version. That is because reading comprehension doesn't turn into the verbal comprehension needed for ethical debate--the WebCT medium is too "cool;" effective learning of ethical analysis needs the "hot" medium of in-your-face claims and counterclaims. You learned much more than the other students in your class, but you'd have learned a lot more in my Tues.-Thurs. face-to-face class.

And I think I understand you pretty well--your preferred learning strategies are also mine, and I absolutely love "hot" media. So, I relate to your assessment of your WebCT courses--I'd have about the same reactions were I the student. But, I don't agree at all with your analysis of the causes of your reaction.

Now to the literature--Am I a constructivist learner?

Since Fall 2001, I have taken several online classes, including Science and Ethics, Logic, Modern Logical Analysis, Art Appreciation, Fundamental Concepts of Information and Computer Technology, and Beginning Italian. Yet I experienced the greatest ease in my Science and Ethics and Art Appreciation classes, maybe because they required more synthesis and analysis, investigation and application, critical thinking and problem solving.

Part of the problem with language learning is acquiring and constructing a new language with different rules of grammar. Even with my background in French, I had problems. However, the main problem was getting me involved online with the class than in getting me to understand the material. Yet my Beginning Italian professor expected the kind of participation one might expect in a traditional classroom: attempting to translate Italian texts to English, speaking (using a microphone and Sound Recorder) and writing in Italian, and taking exams that included listening comprehension and questions that depended on understanding the context of the language (including paragraph writing), among others. It should have been the type of class I excelled in because it was fitted for me as a constructivist student. [1]

Yet what of constructivism? As Jace Hargis points out, "Constructivism stressed the interaction between learner and the environment, and learning is embedded in the context in which it occurs." [2] So the context in which I learn depends on what engages me to learn? According to Piaget and Dewey, it is much simpler than that: a constructivist student learns because the material has a personal application to that student. [3]

However, this conflict is generally related as differences between traditional and nontraditional students. From the literature, the nontraditional student is more likely to appreciate the objectivist approach to learning, "where the goal is usually to have the student acquire and repeat factual information" and in which "objects have intrinsic meaning, and knowledge is a reflection of a correspondence to reality." [4] Rose M. Matra, on the other hand, argues that "if learners know that they will be assessed strictly with objective items that test recall and other lower level types of knowledge, they are not likely to be encouraged to explore a domain in a manner that will impact intellectual development in a lasting way." [5] In referring to M.S. Knowles [6], Huang is more specific: "Adults become ready to learn when their life situations create a need to learn."

As a nontraditional student myself, I have difficulty accepting this view. Part of it is that, except for my age, I do not fit the profile of the nontraditional student. I do not work, have no kids, never been married, and am not interested in dating until after I complete my Ph.D. While I have not always been a full-time student, since I returned to college in Fall 2001, I have taken at least twelve hours each term. I am also involved in extracurricular activities, usually assume an active role in learning, and resist almost anything that does not challenge me to think (e.g., objective measures of assessment). As for learning, I do not know where it begins and ends: to me, learning is an everyday process, not something created from "a need to learn." Even so, when I read studies that center on traditional and nontraditional students, I have to grit my teeth at the familiar stereotype regarding the nontraditional student.

Yet what of the online student? Are there differences between traditional and nontraditional students? Margaret Kendall, Stephen P. Wernet [7], and Georgia Zafeiriou [8] certainly think so. However, these were differences attributed more to different learning styles than to age. For example, computer experience was one factor in how students perceived their WebCT experiences.

In discussing online group interactions, Zafeiriou explains, "A group member holding a fair level of familiarity with computers seemed to feel more comfortable during the online group interaction. Therefore, by feeling more comfortable this particular person increased his or her confidence. As a result participation in the group appeared to be enhanced." [9] Yet, as Zafeiriou points out, the student who gained computer knowledge also gained a greater sense of self-confidence as the course progressed.

Wernet observes interesting dynamics between undergraduate and graduate students, and assigns traditional and nontraditional status based on the students' college levels and ages. Nonetheless, "The traditional student is oriented toward the process of knowledge acquisition and inquiry, whereas the nontraditional student is focused on task completion. These results may also point to the different agendas faced by these students. Traditional students are focused on course work as an equivalent full-time job, whereas nontraditional students are balancing competing interests that vie for a circumscribed amount of available time." [10] Even here, the nontraditional student is presented in a specific context.

Kendall, however, approaches her paper more broadly and looks to specific interactions on the WebCT overall. For example, she notes that grades were largely correlated to how much time the students engaged with WebCT. On the other hand, she relates "decreasing participation at a later stage" [11] that was maybe attributable to time or other classes.

My Turn--A Student Perspective

First, I want to share with you the difference experiences I have had with my own classes from both a WebCT standpoint and as a student. From the WebCT standpoint, I was made aware of many different techniques that worked to enhance the classes I took. In Science and Ethics, the bulletin board feature was used to invite participation on specific topics of interest. On the Links page, we could link to different newspapers in the Dallas, Houston and San Antonio areas and gain access to the online texts throughout the class. On the Course Contents page, we were provided with links to websites related to the material we were then studying; for the medical ethics section of the class, we had access to the CD program that was included as a link.

In my Logic and Modern Logical Analysis classes, we were provided with moving images that helped clarify some of the concepts. We were given power point presentations and mini-lectures. In Logic, we were played with challenge problems added for fun, while in Modern Logical Analysis we worked with the Multisim computer program (a separate aspect of the class not linked to WebCT) and learned how to create an algorithm using a Tree program.

In my Art Appreciation class, we used Prentice Hall Online Solutions, which featured links to various websites that included reviews of the artists and samplings of their artworks; however, we had access to it only through WebCT. Although we were required to visit a local museum for our museum report, most of our engagement with the class was through WebCT.

In my Fundamental Concepts of Information and Computer Technology class, I experienced a very hands-off professor approach. It was the only online class that I have had in which we were more independent study students than class students. Because the professor would not answer questions about the programs we were mastering, I had greater difficulty with the class and only a basic understanding of programs like Access. However, in this class, we also had links to lecture notes for each chapter, to programs for practice quizzes and lab work, and to pop-up screens that relayed the different features and uses of WebCT.

In my Beginning Italian class, I experienced a more traditional class. As I mentioned previously, we were required to have access to a microphone to record our dialogues. We had access to recorded audios attached to WebCT so we could listen to word pronunciations and to the listening comprehension sections for our exams. As a supplementary and required part of the class, we had the Student CD-ROM, which included video segments and language exercises (i.e., you could send a response to Beppe's e-mail, and get a response, as well as respond orally to Beppe's questions at the end of one exercise). We had links to RAI.it (http://www.rai.it/portale), where we pulled articles to translate into English.

This semester, in one of my traditional classroom classes, we are expected to participate in WebCT for a participation grade. It is supplementary to the class, but we are required to contribute, and the site also serves to link us with additional articles and to queue us in on readings we need for the week.

However, I have noticed my interest in WebCT classes has declined since Fall 2001. I am especially reticent this term to log in to WebCT. I think part of the problem may be that I respond better when I have a set time and place, when I can approach my professors outside of class with questions and maybe have a conversation about something related to the class, something that is more limited on WebCT. The WebCT environment has perhaps even made me more lazy about turning in assignments on time and in doing the work until almost last minute, I think because I feel more pressed to do the work in my classroom classes first.

Earlier in the semester, I told Dr. Pepin I would test her theory about how well I would do in a class in which WebCT was a supplementary aspect of it. What I have discovered is that I do not care at all for WebCT when I am taking it as an additional requirement for a face-to-face class. It may be that I am less interested in interacting with other students, or that I am required to continue conversations I had in class; in this instance, it may be that I do not feel I have a say in how I contribute. In actuality, it may be that right now I am just not in WebCT mode.

Yet that does not diminish the importance of WebCT. With the different features I have been exposed through my online classes, I can see the attraction. I think if WebCT develops into a more integrative, classroom-structured class tool that also takes into account the different types of students, then it might indeed become an important tool for distance education. Like any class, though, success depends in part on how the professor presents the class and largely on how the students respond to the presentation.

References

[1] See Hargis, Jace. "Can Students Learn Science Using the Internet?" Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 2001 Summer. 33(4): 475-488; Huang, Hsiu-Mei. "Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments." British Journal of Educational Technology. 2002 Jan. 33(1): 27-38.

[2] Hargis 479.

[3] See Hargis and Huang.

[4] Hargis 479; see also Huang; Kendall, Margaret. "Teaching online to campus-based students: The experience of using WebCT for the community information module at Manchester Metropolitan University." Education for Information. 19(2001): 325-346; Matra, Rose M. "The Ideal Online Learning Environment for Supporting Epistemic Development." Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2002 Spring. 3(1): 27-44.

[5] Matra 22.

[6] See Knowles, M S, Holton III E F and Swanson R A (1998) The adult learner (5th ed) Gulf, Texas; in Huang 29.

[7] See Wernet, Stephen P., Ralph H. Olliges and Timothy A. Delicath. "Postcourse Evaluations of WebCT (Web Course Tools) Classes by Social Work Students." Research on Social Work Practice. 2000 July. 10(4): 487-504.

[8] See Zafeiriou, Georgia, Jose Miguel Baptista Nunes and Nigel Ford. "Using studnets' perceptions of participation in collaborative learning activities in the design of online learning environments." Education for Information. 2001.19(2): 83-107.

[9] Zafeiriou 91.

[10] Wernet 500-501.

[11] Kendall 335.

Vanessa Raney, Our Lady of the Lake University, TX
Madeleine Pepin, Our Lady of the Lake University, TX

Vanessa Raney, a prospective May 2003 graduate from Our Lady of the Lake University. Madeleine Pepin, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy at Our Lady of the Lake University. Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin, 1989.