In the fall semester 1997, the Communication Studies Department at The University of Kansas developed and offered in spring 1998 a one-credit-hour graduate class delivered entirely online. This decision was made in response to identified needs and within several conditions. Two were market-driven and served to facilitate support from university systems for the project. The university had established outreach as one of its key missions, targeting in part adult students who were limited by time and/or geographic constraints of traditional classrooms. The course also was in part a response to growing competition from other local, regional and national universities and training providers using technology to serve adult graduate students. Most importantly, however, the impetus to develop and learn from this course was in response to concerns that online communication education would be inconsistent with the discipline’s focus on interaction. Therefore, the course development team sought to use this prototype class to investigate ways to enhance communication, interaction, and connection between instructor and students and among participants in an online context.

Course Content

The course "Computer-Mediated Communication and Organizational Change" (a demonstration site is at http://kuec.ukans.edu/coms930demo/) was chosen for the trial because the content area was popular among communication studies students and it seemed appropriate to integrate theory about and use of the technologies. Courses in organizational communication and new communication technologies have attracted the largest numbers of students in the program of which this course was a part. The six modules of the course covered:

• physical characteristics of communication technologies used in the workplace, especially characteristics affecting decisions to implement, such as bandwidth and access;
• communication characteristics of these technologies, particularly reduced social cues and related behaviors;
• organizational changes associated with CMC, especially first- and second-level effects, as well as changes in tasks and relationships;
• macro-level organizational changes, especially proliferation of distributed organizations and telework;
• organizational challenges associated with CMC, especially choosing an appropriate medium and the roles of manager and subordinate in electronic space; and
• organizational and related societal challenges, including policy and regulations and legal and operating issues.

Each module contained six components. A course map allowed students to see the connections among elements and to navigate through the course (see the demonstration site at http://kuec.ukans.edu/coms930demo/ for illustrations of all course features). A lecture, averaging 30 minutes for each module, was available through RealAudio. Text slides and other illustrations and a variety of photographs of the instructor presenting the lecture accompanied the audio component. Lecture notes were available in word-processing format for additional note-taking or printing, and readings for each module were available online. Each module also contained a set of questions asking students how long they spent on the module components and their reactions to them. A further link connected the module to a discussion thread.

The Course Development Team

The course was developed by a team composed of four members. Although the instructor (the first author) had taught other classes in communication technology on both KU campuses, this was her first online class. Technical and pedagogic support was provided by the Edwards Campus’ online class producer (the third author). Additional production support was provided by a doctoral student (the fourth author) and by a masters student. Approximately 200 hours over six months were devoted to production of this course.

Learning and Teaching Objectives

This class was developed specifically in response to this opportunity and did not duplicate any existing face-to-face classes. Therefore, comparisons with traditional classroom delivery were impossible.

One of the primary motivations for development of this course was the investigation of communication dynamics in the online format, in part in response to concerns in the discipline about what valuable components of the classroom experience might be lost and what might be gained in online classes. To that end, the format and course components were designed to replicate, insofar as was feasible, characteristics of face-to-face classes. Specifically, course developers sought to incorporate four key elements in this trial course: (1) to present pertinent and engaging content in a way that would support learning and sustain attention; (2) to evoke reflection by students about the material; (3) to support establishment of social presence for each participant; and (4) to foster connection among participants. These objectives guided choices made in content, presentation style, and technical features, as is described below.

Present engaging content. To meet the needs of the adult learners who took this class, a balance between theory and application was sought. In the context of presenting theoretical concepts, students were challenged to consider how their experiences or the experiences of those they know confirmed or disagreed with theory and to explain the effect in terms of key ideas from the readings and lecture. To heighten visual variety and convey energy, both still and moving images as well as text accompanied the audio lecture to illustrate and elaborate key points. An important feature of the lecture was the ability to pause, reverse, and repeat the material to meet individuals’ learning needs and time exigencies.

Evoke reflection. Listening to a lecture while looking at a screen is a receive-only mode that may generate relatively little reflection or processing of ideas. To evoke cognitive engagement and reflection, jot-boxes were inserted into each module. Like an instructor’s question in class, jot-boxes represented an opportunity for students to stop listening passively and consider or process the material, then to respond in writing to the question. Each jot-box was introduced during the audio lecture; then a jot-box screen with a response blank appeared. The boxes asked student to write a response about the course content or about their reactions or experiences with the technology. Each module contained one each of two types of jot-boxes; both returned the student directly to the lecture, but one type sent the message to the instructor, who then responded to the student. The other type of jot-box deleted the response, having served the purpose of provoking thought and articulation of ideas.

Establish social presence. A key objective of this prototype class was supporting social presence both for the instructor and for individual student participants. Social presence is defined as "the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationship" (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976). It is achieved when individuals perceive the salience and involvement of others during interpersonal communication. The fewer channels available in a medium, the less attention is paid by a user to the presence of others (Walther, 1992). Thus, this course used several channels – voice, photographs, and text messages – to establish the presence of the instructor, and used photographs and text to establish the social presence of the participants. Some researchers have argued that the relatively low social presence of computer-mediated-communication (CMC) cannot support a rich level of social relationship because there are fewer social cues and no immediate feedback. Others, however, have countered that CMC is rich enough to sustain immediacy and an elaborated sense of the other (for reviews, see Garton & Wellman, 1995; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).

Research shows that immediacy contributes to student motivation by signaling closeness and liking by the instructor (Moore, Masterson, Christophel & Shea, 1996), which help create a supportive learning environment. Providing support for distant students, such as these nontraditional graduate students, who have few or no other academic or social support resources, is an especially critical component of effective distance education (Kubala, 1998; Moore, 1998). Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) suggest that teacher immediacy, enacted by gesturing, smiling, using humor and vocal variety, personalizing examples, addressing students by name, questioning, praising, and encouraging feedback, contributes to student satisfaction and learning. Immediacy indicates closeness and liking, contributing to student motivation (Moore, et al., 1996).

Research on social presence and computer-mediated communication (CMC) has indicated that, despite the low social bandwidth of CMC, especially of text-based CMC, computer users are able to project their own identities and understand the identities of others. Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) further reported that social presence accounted for 60% of variance in overall learner satisfaction in a study of the use of a text-based medium. Despite the more limited social presence of CMC, it is clear that users can develop warm relationships and connections through frequent and supportive contact (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).

To establish social presence for the instructor, a series of her photographs accompanied the audio lecture. A different photograph appeared with changes in main points, providing visual variety. In the lectures, she focused on connecting material to the technological experience students were sharing, using the class technology itself as a point of connection among the students. In addition, she used humor, personal accounts, and vocal variety to create sense of a three-dimensional presenter in a two-dimensional medium. Further, the instructor sent individual e-mails to students, both in response to jot-box comments and in response to their queries or concerns. To heighten the social presence of the students, a roster included photographs and short biographical statements of the students. No screen names or pseudonyms were used.

Foster connection among students. Two points of view about interaction in text-based CMC courses dominate the literature. Some scholars argue that interaction through text-based means, as well as through video networks, is intrinsically limited because of the lack of social presence and of social cues (see, for example, Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Comeaux, 1995). Potential time delays in responses further inhibit satisfying interaction. In contrast to this position, having time to frame a message can enhance interaction, especially for students who are shy, physically challenged, or otherwise reticent (Harasim, 1990). It may be further argued that individual differences among students, including fluency, native language, and experience with constructionist approaches, would affect their satisfaction with text-based interaction.

Threaded discussions were the mechanism to foster student-to-student and student-to-group interaction. An initial comment or question from the instructor started each thread. Additional comments from her, as well as from the two "virtual professors" (faculty who teach communication and technology classes at other institutions) were designed to keep discussion focused and moving forward. During the initial month of the course, all discussion was threaded through one web page. When it became clear students were working at significantly different rates, the discussion was split into six sections, one for each content module.

The Context

The course was offered as part of the University of Kansas’s graduate program in communication studies at its Edwards Campus operation in Kansas City. This suburban campus serves working adults throughout the metropolitan area with professional programs in business, education, social welfare, engineering, architecture, and health services administration. The masters program in Communication Studies, the only non-professional program at the Edwards Campus, is structurally and materially identical to the main campus masters program, with the same requirements for entrance and graduation and the same required courses. All courses are taught in the evenings by the same faculty who teach on the main campus. The program is directed and administered by a faculty member who teaches on both campuses. All students in the program are working professionals who juggle jobs, families, and civic responsibilities. The mean age of students at this campus is 39; most are married and have children.

Three types of students take courses in the Communication Studies program at the Edwards Campus: regularly–admitted students from either of the university’s Communication Studies programs, students admitted to other Edwards Campus programs, and non-degree-seeking students. Non-degree-seeking students often are interested in investigating the program before applying or are seeking specific course material to support their professional or personal interests. All three types of students were considered part of the potential population for this course.

Based on the literature and initial course objectives, the following research questions were posed for evaluation of the prototype course:

RQ1: How did students evaluate the online class, both in total and in terms of its components?

RQ2: To what extent did students feel that the course achieved the four objectives of presenting engaging material, establishing social presence for all participants, evoking reflection, and fostering interaction?

RQ3: What elements of the course were unsatisfying or troubling for students?

Students in the Online Course

Seventeen of the 18 students enrolled in the online class completed it for university credit. Students represented a variety of academic programs and professions. Eight were masters students and two were doctoral students in Communication Studies, two were MBA students, one was a Ph.D. student in Educational Policy and Leadership. Five students were not enrolled in a degree program. Job titles of students enrolled in the course included university administrator, benefits specialist, marketing manger, teacher (2), graduate teaching assistant (3), research assistant, human resources representative, chief financial officer, telecommunications director, and information technology consultant. They had been in the workforce from zero to 31 years, with a mean of 13 years. Eleven (61.1%) were female; seven (38.9%) were male. Only two students had experience with distance education; one had taken an online class and one had taken a correspondence study class. Two students were located outside the Midwest, one in Florida and one in South Carolina, and two others lived outside the metropolitan area although within the state of Kansas.

Data Sources

Information sources for assessment of this trial course were regular student evaluations of the course (n=12), in this case the standard departmental; data gathered in the feedback components of the modules; and individual telephone interviews with the students (n=18).

Course evaluation forms. The course evaluation form (see Appendix A) was e-mailed to each student for return to the department’s graduate secretary, who regularly compiles all departmental evaluation. The form includes 15 Likert-type items and three open-ended questions.

Module feedback elements. Responses to feedback questions at the end of each module were moved electronically to spreadsheet format for analysis through the FrontPage program. Fewer students than had been hoped answered these questions, possibly because they were not emphasized in lectures and because there was no penalty for not answering them. Hence, relatively little data was available from this source.

Telephone interviews. The second author, who was not otherwise involved in course development or facilitation, interviewed by telephone each of the 18 students enrolled in the class, using an interview protocol (see Appendix B) as a guide, but not as a constraint. In addition to demographic questions, interview questions focused on students’ expectations of the course, technical problems they had experienced, the extent to which they felt connected with the instructor and the other students, and their responses to each of the module components and to the course overall. Telephone interviews averaged 30 minutes in length.

Results are organized around each of the research questions.

RQ1: How did students evaluate the online class, both in total and in terms of its components?

Students rated their experiences highly in this trial online graduate class, assigning it a mean overall evaluation score of 4.81 out of 5 on the course evaluation forms. As a basis of comparison, the mean rating for all Communication Studies courses in Fall 1998 was 4.33.

Students reported in interviews that their initial attractions to this online class were the topic (52.9%), desire for flexibility in time and space (41.2%), and curiosity about the course delivery technology itself (29.4%) (multiple answers were permitted). Of the group, 57.5% (n= 10) indicated that the flexibility of taking the course asynchronously had been an important and positive part of their experience. However, another six students told the interviewer the flexibility was both good and bad. It was good in allowing them to attend to the course when they had time, and bad because it let them procrastinate in doing so.

Most students (61.1%, n = 11) reported in interviews they had learned from this course at least in part because of the mode of delivery. Another three (16.7%), in contrast, felt that the technology had been an impediment to their learning, and four (22.2%) said it had been both a help and a hindrance. A student who favored the medium said the mode of delivery itself was a learning experience, "using the technology was very well-suited for the course and it heightened my interest in the reading material." Another said, "I felt like I was on my own in a way. I had to count on myself more," further indicating that using the technology in this context helped her learn.

Students who perceived the technology as an impediment to their learning were frustrated both by technological problems and by lack of face-to-face interaction. One student said she found it difficult to concentrate and easy to lose her train of thought due to problems she had with download buffering that caused her to lose her place. Another indicated that lack of synchronous and face-to-face discussion prevented some of the feedback and follow-up that would have been present in a traditional classroom; these would have helped him learn more. He said, "We learned what the instructor presented, which was less fully developed than what you get in a classroom environment."

RQ2: To what extent did the course achieve the four objectives of engaging material, social presence for all participants, reflection, and interaction?

Engaging material: In interviews, 72% of the students indicated they found the material interesting, and 67% reported it was challenging. Ten students (55.6%) said they found the delivery method visually compelling. One respondent said he was less likely to be distracted with this delivery than with just books. The PowerPoint notes were well-liked as a means to provide focus during audio lectures.

"The lectures were wonderful. Great visuals, thorough explanations – a lively presentation was given in each module even through this medium," wrote one student in the course evaluation. Another noted, "The online lecture and additional readings were particularly good." Yet another wrote on the course evaluation, "The course materials are strong. The web page designs are very nice and easy to use."

A number of students commented on the pertinence of the medium for this course material. "The mode of delivery itself was a learning experience. Using the technology was very well suited for the course," one told the interviewer. He added it heightened his interest in the reading material.

Social presence. Students indicated that the instructor clearly had established a social presence. Sixteen of the eighteen students indicated they felt connected to the instructor, and all of them said they felt comfortable interacting with her electronically. It must be noted, however, that seven students attributed this comfort at least in part to knowing the instructor in prior face-to-face contexts. Elaborating on the instructor’s presence, several students noted they felt they had access and would have timely, individual responses. "The interaction was one-on-one," a student said. "I felt like I was talking to her." In addition, several students mentioned that the photographs of the instructor presented during the lecture were helpful and the combination of her voice and photographs established a strong connection. One of the two students who had experienced distance education previously told the interviewer, "The medium used to support this course was significantly improved over printed self-paced courses or audio-only based courses. The instructor became part of the medium rather than simply using the technology."

In contrast, the social presence of the students was not as clearly established. Almost all (n=16, 88.9%) said in interviews they did not feel connected to the other class members. Some noted that responses from other students did not seem spontaneous and did not show much of the students’ personalities. Despite having a roster, students did not seem substantial or "real" to one another. This may have been due in part to contrast with the instructor’s high social presence and certainly is related to the students’ level of interaction with one another in the discussion component, as reported below.

Reflection. Most responses from students about the jot-boxes were positive.

"I especially enjoyed reflecting on the lectures in the jot-box," one student said. Another told the interviewer the jot-box was helpful because it allowed her to stop and think about what she heard in the lecture.

Some students discovered early on that one of the two jot-boxes in each module did not go to the instructor but served instead as a process or thinking exercise, so they began skipping them. Additionally, some were troubled because they did not know what was expected in this new response format, whether it was to be a formal essay response or a more casual reply.

Interaction. While some students enjoyed the flexibility to participate whenever they had time and ability to carefully frame messages, a majority of students were not satisfied with their interactions with one another. Sixty-five percent (n=11) said they did not feel comfortable with the other students. For some, this clearly is connected to lack of social presence they felt from their class colleagues. One attributed her lack of connection and participation to the fact she was not able to "know" with whom she was sharing messages. Another noted that she did not know the other students’ expectations and therefore was hesitant to communicate with them in this format. Several students commented on the absence of traditional graduate classroom give-and-take dynamic. Because of the lack of live and immediate interaction and the computer-screen interface, one student said, "I lost the moment to say what I wanted to say." Another commented, "In adult education, you learn as much from your classmates as you do from the instructor."

Electronic discussion was made more difficult because in the absence of synchronous elements, students worked at their own rates and were at different points in the class. Some students indicated it was frustrating to keep track of their own comments and replies because the discussion had moved on to new material and because sometimes considerable time had passed, although they reported this was mitigated by separating the discussion into separate threads for each module.

RQ3: What elements of the course were unsatisfying or troubling for students?

As noted, a number of students were frustrated by the absence of dynamic feedback, interaction and collective creation of knowledge they had come to expect in graduate classrooms. One student told the interviewer that one thing she had gained from the class experience was an understanding that her own learning depended in large measure on listening, talking, and interacting with classmates.

Students told the interviewer they had had relatively few technical problems overall and those who asked for help were very satisfied with the technical support they received. Reported technical problems centered on page loading speed and buffering, loading and using RealAudio, and AOL’s inability to handle web-based frames. Despite the low number of reported problems, students indicated frustration with some elements of the technology. The age of their computers and modem speed made an important difference in students’ satisfaction with the course. Those with slow modems were forced to find an alternative computer at work or home, or come to campus to use equipment that would support the programs. In addition to slow page loading because of older modems, several students were frustrated because their Internet service provider would drop them off-line while listening to the lecture, triggering a disconnect because of the lack of activity perceived by the Internet Service Provider. They found it difficult to go back to the location where they had been in the lecture; thus, they lost both content continuity and time. Some computers with older versions of web browsers would not support RealAudio, so students had to seek alternative computers. Several students also experienced frustration with reading from the screen; one student had expected the class to be totally paperless, but she found she had to print the readings in order to be comfortable with them.

Other findings. Although students generally were grateful for the flexibility inherent in online delivery, 66.7% advocated more centralized control of course pacing. A student captured the sense of this need, saying he fell behind in the course because he was able to. Another reported she needed interim deadlines since she had discipline problems with this type of class; she procrastinated, which caused her to miss out on the class interaction while catching up. She liked the self-paced format, but would have liked target benchmarks.

In addition, some students wished for clearer expectations overall. The unfamiliar format and lack of spontaneous ability to check expectations or learn from other students’ procedural questions led to considerable ambiguity about performance expectations.

This study evaluated student responses to a prototype online graduate course on computer-mediated communication and organizational change. Based on responses on course evaluations and in individual telephone interviews, it reports overall student reactions to the class and to its component elements. It also reports the extent to which the course succeeded in delivering engaging content, supporting social presence for the instructor and the other participants, provoking reflection, and fostering student-to-student interaction. Additional findings also are presented.

Student responses to the online environment

Participant responses to this online class and its presentation components were positive overall. They reported that the class succeeded in presenting engaging material and evoking reflection. Their responses concerning the social presence and interaction supported by this class were mixed, however. While students reported sensing the instructor’s social presence online and being comfortable interacting with her, many were uncomfortable interacting electronically with other students. Their comments are consistent with Comeaux’s (1995) findings in a study of the effects of an interactive distance network on classroom communication of students’ reasons for not participating. These included feeling not very involved, feeling that they could watch but not participate, and having technical interruptions. Similarly, McHenry and Bozik (1995) reported students in an interactive video-delivered class complained they didn’t know the remote students at all. Results from this online course are similar. Other students were perceived as being distant and not altogether real. What they received from other students ". . . was a message, not a person, as far as the students were concerned," according to one respondent. Many students noted in various ways that they felt the classroom is a much richer environment than being online for sharing thoughts and feelings or probing for feedback. CMC messages may be less personal or socioemotional than face-to-face messages; some studies show that messages delivered through CMC are more task-oriented, cold, and less personal (Rice & Love, 1987). Other studies indicate, however, that online communication may convey very effectively a person’s personality, as well as express warmth and social support (Walther & Boyd, 1997). To the extent they do not perceive online messages as warm or personal, students with a high need or expectations for more personal interaction may compare CMC negatively to traditional classroom interaction.

In this graduate course, there was no grade component for participation in the online discussion. Althaus (1997) has argued that online participation needs to have significant value to students. That is, participation should serve as a component of a grade or have some other personal value. While individual acknowledgment by the instructor in the threaded discussion might be a way to heighten the intrinsic value of participation and to enhance students’ social presence, being singled out could intimidate or frustrate those who are not comfortable revealing uncertainty or trying out new ideas in an electronic context.

Specially assigned interactions, as in group projects, may provide a useful means for adult learners to develop social presence in CMC and establish both motivation and opportunity to learn to know one another electronically. As Bailey and Cotlar (1994) have proposed, cooperative learning experiences serve well to establish identity of participants and offer contexts within which to interact regularly. Frequent interaction anchored around shared tasks or objectives is a promising means to address the lack of social presence and connection identified by the students in this prototype class.

Yet another means of heightening social presence might be to use a composite of the students’ photographs as wallpaper for the threaded discussions.

Despite the frustration some students experience with them, online discussions provide advantages, as Harasim (1990) notes. First, text-based communicators often become more reflective than verbal communicators. Second, they may be more attentive to the messages of others, in part at least because they are not competing in real-time for attention and have adequate time to consider another’s message. Finally, they are put on a more equal social footing with one another in that physical presence or personality does not influence interaction to the same extent as in face-to-face discussions (Culnan & Markus, 1987; Harasim, 1990; Hiltz & Turoff, 1993). Weisband, Schneider and Connolly (1995) found that participation online changes once participants know the social characteristics of others, providing an opportunity for students to place online interaction in a more elaborated and perhaps more comfortable context.

Face-to-face interaction tends to reward individuals who are good at making quick responses (Althaus, 1997) but may result in production blocking for others, particularly when evaluation apprehension is triggered (Connolly, 1997). In contrast, online discussions offer additional time for reflection and articulation of ideas. This can be particularly useful for students who do not articulate ideas rapidly, who are reticent about participating, or for whom English is a second language. The one student in this course who spoke English as a second language noted she found online delivery better than a classroom because she could take time to think through what she wanted to say before writing it and was able to look up words. She said the asynchronous delivery gave her "time to present ideas in an American way." At the same time, as students in this course noted, online discussions are significantly less processual and constructivist (Brandt, 1997) than face-to-face discussions. This leaves some students feeling isolated when they would prefer interaction involving listening and speaking to discover what they know, think and feel. Clearly, some students enrolled in this class were put off and frustrated by the absence of spontaneous, real-time and personal interaction with other students.

When asked if they would have liked the course to have included a synchronous chat session, 13 (72.2%) responded positively. Some said they were prepared to be available at assigned times several times during the semester for a more interactive discussion, although several noted they would not have been able to participate because of equipment limitations. Several other students suggested a single face-to-face meeting at the beginning of the semester to establish who the other students were and to begin developing relationships. While it is likely that such a meeting would enhance interaction and serve as an opportunity to establish and clarify expectations, several of the more distant participants would not have been able to be present. As phone bridge and PC-based video conferencing technologies improve, such a face-to-face meeting could include individuals who are located at a distance from the institution offering the course. Determining the relative value of asynchronous delivery and face-to-face interaction will continue to be a challenge for online course developers until students develop familiarity and comfort with online delivery and establish reasonable expectations for it.

Adult learning styles and online education

One lens through which to view the differences in student responses to this online class is adult learning style theory. Learning style theory, which often is presented in the context of multiple intelligence theory (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 1997), focuses on individual’s particular process of learning. Gardner (1983) has identified seven intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic; spatial, musicial-auditory, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Students’ intelligences suggest what learning style is appropriate for them. Different elements of online courses offer material suited to different learning styles and thus may evoke more positive or negative responses from students with varying learning styles. For example, a student with strengths in the kinesthetic learning style can satisfy that mode through the hand-eye coordination as they type and submit a "jotbox" response. The auditory learner will be engaged by the streaming media feature, which delivers the instructor’s voice in a personal and, perhaps, a dramatic fashion. An adult who is more comfortable with interpersonal learning styles will be comfortable and profit from the directed discussion features, while the less gregarious students may have a sense of one-on-one interaction with the instructor. The logical-mathematical student may proceed through the course in a very linear manner, while the more abstract learner can jump around and find a topic that is engaging at that particular moment.

The Role of the Technology

Students evaluated the technical presentation of this online course material highly overall, indicating it was engaging and challenging, and especially that using the very technologies on which the material focused helped them learn more. In the end, however, the technology was both help and hindrance to student learning. It provided considerable valued flexibility, but for some students, technical problems (especially from old equipment) were limiting. As one student noted, "Flexibility is only flexibility if you don’t have to make a special trip to campus to use a fast-enough computer." This course development team based a number of decisions about course design on casual comments from Edwards Campus and other students about their use of technology. Their expressed confidence and reports of use led the team to conclude that students generally had better equipment and more experience than this group, at least, had. In some cases, it was clear in retrospect that the students thought they had current knowledge and equipment but were mistaken.

The experience of this class reflects a dilemma facing online course developers: how students can become more familiar and comfortable with online delivery without experiencing it. One of the most effective and powerful ways to accomplish this may be in traditional classrooms as instructors increasingly provide some online supporting materials or require students do some some work online or interactively. Learning to use the technology incrementally will better prepare students for classes delivered entirely online.

Course developers must increasingly be able and willing to clearly identify minimum technical requirements for each class. Relatedly, students must consider their individual technical situations and decide whether the flexibility of not coming to class is valuable enough to be traded for the need to go to a campus computer lab to deal with the course.

Lessons Learned

The demographics of this group, with its on-campus and off-campus components, are illustrative of the blurring between campus-based and distributed or distant students that online education is evoking (Thompson, 1998). Although most working adults have schedules at least as demanding as those of campus-based graduate students, fewer off-campus students fell behind in the class and were forced to rush to complete the material. This may be a function of age; most campus-based participants in this class were in their 20s, while most off-campus students were in their 40s. This study demonstrates that course developers need to acknowledge and plan around the needs of many types of students, as well as to acknowledge the variety of learning styles they may bring to the online class.

The experience of the students in this trial course support Gibson’s (Moore, 1998, p. 4) arguments that all distant learners "want and deserve:

• Content that they feel is relevant to their needs,
• Clear directions for what they should do at every stage of the course,
• As much control of the pace of learning as possible,
• A means of drawing attention to individual concerns,
• A way of testing their progress and getting feedback from their instructor, and
• Materials that are useful, active and interesting."

Students in this prototype online graduate class valued relevant and engaging content, flexibility in pace, ready connection to the instructor and prompt, individual feedback. They also desired less ambiguity about expectations of their performance and a more classroom-like environment for interaction with other students. Several students reiterated the difference between traditional classrooms and this online course. An online course "can’t take the place of the classroom," one said. Another argued that electronic delivery cannot replace the live interaction in a classroom; this delivery mode can enhance a live course, but not replace the experience.

Implications for developers of online courses

Results from this study of a prototype online graduate course suggest several issues for course developers to address. First, students need to be very clearly advised before enrollment in an online class of both the minimum required technology and the optimal technology. Course developers must acknowledge that relatively few students have sophisticated computer equipment either at home or work.

Second, it is appropriate to recognize the inherent ambiguity of being a distance learner and provide explicit expectations about both participation and performance. A separate discussion thread specifically about expectations, process, problems, suggestions and general feedback may be in order. Third, course developers should seek ways to balance flexibility and deadlines that help students stay together in the material, thereby supporting interactions. Finally, as the overarching objective unifying planning and execution of online classes, online instructors should focus on the simultaneity of student needs for facilitation and content and plan carefully how the two may be integrated in their content presentation and course management.

Limitations of the study

This evaluation study was limited to the 18 individuals enrolled in the course. Repeated and expanded studies of additional online course offerings are needed to establish trends. The evaluation reported here also addressed only affective student responses to the course and did not address learning outcomes. Subsequent studies should address the concurrent need for positive learning and affective outcomes.

As a one-credit-hour class, this course did not offer as many opportunities for interaction among students as one representing three credit hours of work would have done. Given that CMC-based relationships may develop relatively more slowly (Walther & Burgoon, 1992), changes in students’ reported comfort with electronic interactions might be expected over the course of a standard semester or during a course requiring more interaction, as with an online group project.

Seven students already were familiar with the instructor before the beginning of this online class. While there is some comparison with students who had not been in her face-to-face classes, more research involving no-history electronic classrooms is in order.

Directions for future research

This course evaluation raises additional questions and suggests further study in a number of areas. First, in this course, content and delivery media were meshed to an unusual degree, in that it integrated course content about computer-mediated communication with use of the technology. It is appropriate to investigate the effects when more traditional subject matter is delivered using a similar multi-media content/facilitation model.

Further research also is needed on student-to-student electronic interaction processes, particularly investigating ways to engage students and tap both their individual and collective creativity. Similarly, additional research is needed to examine the role of the facilitator in online classes and requisite skills for facilitation. Studying the extent to which students can serve in facilitation roles is appropriate. Engaging students, especially adult learners, in contexts requiring them to participate and direct rather than just receive may engage them further in the course content and processes and thereby support both learning and affective outcomes.

What percentage of this course’s class meetings did you attend this semester? _____

What is your estimate of your final course grade in this class? A B C D F

Each of the following questions is rated on a five-point scale with 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree.

Class time was well organized and effective.

The instructor added to assigned reading material rather than merely repeating it.

The instructor made good use of examples and illustrations to clarify concepts.

The instructor encouraged students’ questions and answered them adequately.

The instructor was stimulating and interesting to listen to.

The instructor was knowledgeable in the area.

Assignments (readings, problems, speeches, papers, etc.) were worthwhile learning experiences.

The instructor provided feedback, explaining evaluations of papers, assignments and/or exams.

Papers and examinations were returned within a reasonable amount of time.

The instructor’s standards for grading and evaluations were clearly stated in the course syllabus.

The instructor was available for consultation.

The instructor showed positive regard for students and their interests.

Overall course goals and objectives were met.

Overall, this instructor was effective.

Overall, this course was an effective learning experience.

The following open-ended questions appear on the reverse of the form:

What aspects of the teaching or content of this course do you feel was especially worthwhile?

What changes could be made to improve the teaching or the content of this course?

Please comment on the course overall as a learning experience.