Computers and the Internet are now a standard feature of American homes. More than half the country’s households have computers and, by 2000, 42% could log on to the Web. Access is even more widespread among children: nearly 90 percent of children ages 6-17 have access to computers at home or at school, two-thirds of those 3-17 live in homes with computers, and one-third have gone online (Boston Globe, 2001). More than three-quarters of youth ages 12-17 who have Internet access have used the Internet for school research (Pew, 2001).

The widespread availability of the requisite technology and skills makes it possible to deliver instruction to college students without regard to location, time, or physical disability; as a result, most institutions of higher education have added online courses to their offerings (DeMaggio et al, 2001; Hawkins 2000; National Center For Education Statistics, 1998; Seely, Brown and Duguid 1999). By 2001, 75% of all universities offered one or more courses online (compared to 22% in 1995-1996) and more than one-quarter offered many courses with online components (Mariani, 2001; Prato, 2001). By 2002, the exclusively online University of Phoenix had grown to an online enrollment of more than 37,000 (Hafner, 2002). Arthur Levine (2000) asked, “If we can do all of that [richly supported online instruction], [w]hy do we need the physical plant called the college?” Peter Drucker (Bray, 1999) even forecast that “[u]niversities won’t survive” these changes.

Yet the growth of technology-enhanced higher education has been neither universally applauded nor consistently successful. Some professors have sounded alarms about the difficulty of distance instruction and the potential for instructional inequities (Applebome, 1999). University-based enthusiasm for online education has often not been reflected in student enrollments. Already, schools including New York University, Temple and the University of Maryland have closed their separate online ventures, and some executives have concluded that “e-learning technology itself, and …the institutional and corporate agents of change…have thus far failed” (Hafner, 2002). There is as yet no easy path to technology-based instruction nor any guarantee of ultimate success.

The project on which this report is based explored some of the factors that facilitate and impede the success of technology-enhanced instruction at UMass Boston. Specifically, it focused in the fall, 2001 on an Interactive Television (ITV) course, involving synchronous broadcast of a Boston-based class to students at UMass Lowell, and three Web-based (online) courses sponsored by Continuing Education, in which students participated only through online instruction and dialogue. Students in a traditional class were used for comparative purposes.

This report addresses three research questions that have been the focus of much recent research on computers in higher education:

Why do students take internet-based and ITV courses?
How do internet-based and ITV courses influence social relations among students and with instructors?
What influences satisfaction with internet-based and ITV courses?

Answers to each of these questions will help to clarify the potential for and limitations of distance education as it is currently being used at UMass Boston.

Background

Prior research and published anecdotal reports suggest several possible influences on student interest, social relations, and satisfaction in relation to ITV and online courses.

Bases of Interest

In the general population, both age and education are related to Internet access, while race, gender, and income are not. However, among people who have established access to the Internet, sociodemographic factors have little relation to frequency of Internet use (Nie and Erbring, 2000). Other factors seem likely to be more important, and we predicted that personal circumstances that influence the benefits and costs of enrollment in online instruction would be critical (Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000). Such benefits and costs can result from efficiencies in travel and scheduling that may be particularly important for full-time employees and mothers with children (Mariani, 2001).

Social Interaction

There is little doubt that the Internet alters the quality of interpersonal relations, but there is as yet no consensus on whether it tends to increase or decrease social isolation, or to alter social relations in other ways. Nie and Erbring (2000) found that heavier Internet use is associated with less time socializing with others in person, but Rainie (Raney, 2000) concluded that heavier Internet users were more socially connected. The most recent research suggests that negative social effects of Internet use may have dissipated as its popularity has increased, but it is clear that some online communicators still end up becoming more socially isolated (Guernsey, 2001).

The classroom impact of information technology may be even more pronounced. Social interaction within the classroom has been an important component of education in the United States since the 18^thcentury (Cremin, 1980). The social structure of the traditional school evolved in a shared physical space, and the symbolic relationship between the social structure of the classroom and interaction within it has facilitated student involvement in classroom discussion (Metz, 1978).

An online class has few, if any, of the opportunities for face-to-face interaction found in such a traditional classroom. An ITV classroom cuts off students at the remote site at least temporarily from in-person interaction with their fellow students at the originating site and with the instructor. Schmertzing and Schmertzing (2001) found that students in ITV classes often psychologically separated into two classes, at the host site and the remote site. Students clearly distinguished the host site from the remote site and referred to themselves as “us” while they called their classmates at the remote sites “them.” Students perceived their classmates at the remote sites negatively and hostilely. Students at the remote sites reported a disadvantage because students at the other site interacted directly with the instructor. Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker (2000) found that being a physical part of a classroom community enhanced social connections, while Abrahamson (1998) noted that “the interactions between students themselves” was a “problematic area” in distance learning, where there is no physical classroom.

On the other hand, Teh (1999) found that students rated online courses better than traditional courses, in part because online courses enforced more teamwork and collective effort. Stokes (1999) concluded that the amount of social interaction among students did not predict their wish to take online courses in the future. In fact, some find that collaborative education, or peer-to-peer knowledge sharing, is the essence of online classes (Phillips, 1998). The ability of cyber-education to tailor instruction to the particular interests and backgrounds of individual students may improve interaction between the instructor and the individual student (Phillips, 2000).

It is clear that concerted efforts can overcome at least some of the disadvantages of social interaction over a distance, but it is not clear how common or even realistic and feasible such efforts are in the college setting (Rosenwald, 2001). Comeaux (1995) found differences in distance-learning courses depending on (a) the approach to team teaching and use of classroom space, (b) the instructors’ style of interaction and interpersonal dimensions, and (c) responses to the technology and the learning experience. These findings make it clear that the impact of online instruction on social relations may vary with course features.

Satisfaction and Attrition

Both student attrition and satisfaction are important concerns in evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning (Binner, Dean, and Mellinger, 1994). At Texas A&M, students enrolled in online courses had significantly higher attrition in 13 of the 15 courses than those enrolled in on-site courses. (Terry, 2001). However, in another study, 84 percent of students were satisfied with the online courses they were taking (Bower and Kamata, 2000).

Prior research indicates that both student characteristics and specific course features influence satisfaction. Bower and Kamata (2000) found that older students (40 and older) enjoyed online instruction more than younger students. Student technological savvy also influences satisfaction with online courses. Benson and Wright (1999) found that students needed to know how to use computers in order to be successful in an online writing class.

Course features that influence student satisfaction with online instruction include teachers’ willingness to communicate with students, the frequency of interaction with the teacher, and the ability of the specific technology to create a sense of social presence (Witt and Wheeless, 1999; Andersen, 1979; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Hackman & Walker, 1990; McCroskey & Richmond, 1992; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Walker & Hackman, 1991; Guerrero & Miller, 1998, Murphy & Farr, 1993; Schlosser & Anderson, 1993).

Overall, prior research suggests that technology-enhanced distance instruction will be more successful with students who derive more benefit from the flexibility it offers and who are better prepared for the technological challenges it can create. Course designs that minimize these technological challenges and maximize instructor-student contact seem most likely to elicit positive student reactions.

Methodology

The primary purpose of this project was to provide training in research procedures as part of a one-semester class, and so we sought only to explore selected issues in computer-based instruction. The project proceeded without funding and within the constraints imposed by student schedules and reasonable expectations for one course. We did not attempt to develop a generalizable description of the UMassBoston experience with distance learning nor to use methods that could test formal causal hypotheses about the impact of this type of instruction. What the findings provide are multiple perspectives on ITV and online courses, with data from qualitative interviews of several students and a few faculty, observations of several classes, and a quantitative survey of 57 students. The result is a report that can highlight important issues, stimulate thinking about current problems, and chart a direction for further, more systematic research.

A standardized survey was administered by phone to 57 students: 20 in a traditional face-to-face communications course; 22 in an ITV version of the same course (4 of whom were at the remote site in Lowell—the entire enrollment there), and 15 students in three online courses—one in sociology, one in political science, and one in counseling. The survey was distributed and collected in the two communications classes, while the online students were surveyed by phone. The online sample was designed as a systematic random sample, but the number of students who had to be replaced as a result of unavailability and wrong numbers made the obtained sample more of an availability sample. The interview schedule took about 20 minutes to complete, although extra questions were included for the online and ITV respondents.

Survey measures were selected from a variety of sources, including Compeau and Higgins (1995), Hiltz and Wellman (1997), and Mael and Ashforth (1992). Key variables measured with multiple questions were course satisfaction, satisfaction with online course features, social cohesion, interaction with other students and the course instructor, computer familiarity, and internet use.

Several specific limitations of this research project must be kept in mind while reading about the findings: (1) Most importantly, data were collected from only a small availability sample of classes, thus making it unlikely that the findings are representative of the population of students enrolled in ITV or online classes even in the fall, 2001, when the study was conducted. (2) The one traditional class used for comparative purposes was chosen because it was a different section of the same course as the selected ITV course, but it was taught by a different professor. As a result, this one class is a very weak proxy for a true control group. (3) The small number of classes and students studied preclude all but the simplest analyses and any expectation of well-supported causal conclusions. (4) Some qualitative interview data were lost due to a computer failure and were not available for this report.

In this report, qualitative findings are presented first, followed by an analysis of the quantitative survey data.

ITV Courses

We interviewed students and one faculty member participating in a Boston to Lowell ITV course. We begin with student observer descriptions of the ITV setup (edited slightly for clarity):

There was one big screen in front of the class and three TV monitors that were always on, and each of them played a different role. The big screen was used to show videos, slides, and other visual aids for instruction and presentations. TV monitor 1 and 2 showed the students at the remote site. There was a camera right next to each TV monitor so that when someone looks at the monitor for the remote site, it will look as if s/he is talking to the remote site. TV monitor 3 showed what students at the remote site are seeing, so that the instructor can make sure that those students are seeing what they are supposed to see.

Faculty Interview

At the time, the professor who taught the Boston-to-Lowell ITV course had taught seven other ITV courses and one exclusively online course. This experience, as well as his background in communication and media, meant that he was an innovator at UMass Boston in IT-based instruction. He had learned that teaching with ITV requires some changes in approach. The professor must think about how material will play in a remote site and how the technology can be used to present course material to best advantage. This professor used four strategies to maintain student engagement: (1) Setting up a web page as a central communication forum, in addition to email. (2) Making periodic visits to the remote site classes, usually starting with the second or third class, so that the students meet him personally and have a sense of engagement. (3) Assigning lots of group projects, where students are encouraged to collaborate across campuses by email and phone. (4) Making the students co-producers, by asking for student suggestions and scheduling group presentations.

The mix of face-to-face and distance learning opportunities in the ITV class seemed to the instructor to help keep students involved, but a lot of “nagging” and reminding also seemed to be needed early in the semester. By mid-semester, things “usually start to click.”

One problem with this arrangement was the “tyranny of email,” as the continual communication with students by email broke down the separation between work, play, research, and home. Another problem was occasional equipment failure. Cables break, mikes fail, etc. Student readiness for the ITV experience was also an issue--a pre-course self-evaluation to make sure that students are prepared and disciplined enough for the experience might help to screen out those who never find it possible to engage. Overall, however, for this interviewee the ITV classroom extended traditional education bit did not differ radically from it. The different demands of the ITV class seemed to be a challenge which could be mastered.

Student Interviews

Student comments focused on technological problems and social interaction. A student who commented on the UMass Boston - Lowell ITV class termed it “futuristic,” like something out of the “Jetsons,” and he raved about the instructor, but he also noted repeated technical difficulties, such as having no sound at one campus or having an echo. Although he felt both classes were treated the same by the instructor, he himself felt a closer connection with the students in the Boston class and reported that there was not a lot of conversation, nor any real socializing, between the Boston students and the Lowell students. Within the classroom, however, he felt that he participated as much as he would have in a traditional classroom setting.

Observations

Several graduate students observed two sessions of the UMassBoston-Lowell ITV class, both of which involved student presentations. One of these sessions ran smoothly, but the other was plagued by technical difficulties. Observing the class with the equipment problems provided an unusual opportunity to see the impact of technological factors on class social dynamics, even though it results in more attention here to technological difficulties than is appropriate for the course as a whole, since major technological glitches were relatively uncommon.

The ITV class was popular and enjoyed by students, in part because of the dynamic professor and in part because the subject matter of the class—communications—drew students who were interested in the innovative use of media in instruction. There were some advantages to the camera’s presence, as in the clearer and louder speech it tended to elicit from students.

In spite of the overall positive atmosphere in the class, a consistent theme in the observational notes was the relative lack of interaction between students at the remote and host sites. To an observer at the Boston host site, students at the Lowell didn’t seem to require attention:

While sitting in the Boston class, I felt as if Lowell was not really a part of the same class. It was as if their images on the monitor in the far right upper corner of the room were nothing more than an additional technical “prop” rather than active members of the same class. Even the noises from their end, laughing, book slamming, paper ripping, and sneezing all added to the “sound effects” of the room, which often led to increased disruption of informational presentations.

One set of notes described the differences in detail:

The Lowell students applauded at the conclusion of the Boston presentation. Presenters asked if anybody had any questions. Some questions were asked from Boston, but nobody from Lowell asked any questions. At the conclusion of questions, the professor began discussion regarding the presentation. Boston responded, while Lowell again disengaged and drifted. Boston students paid little to no attention to the monitor broadcasting the Lowell class. Noises resounded in Boston as a student from Lowell began coughing while the professor was speaking.

Careful observations indicated that the reasons for this separation included the visibility of the TV monitor during student presentations and having one audience that was physically present during the students’ presentations. Observational notes explain the underlying social processes.

There was a tremendous difference between the students at the Boston site and those at the Lowell site in their attitude towards speaking to the camera. The main reason probably is the difference in the classroom settings. At Boston, students had to do their presentation standing in front of the whole class and … because they had an audience in the immediate situation, the students in front of them -- they only looked at this audience.

On the other hand, the students at Lowell did their presentation from their seats. …it seemed like they had a monitor that showed students at Boston at all times and a camera right next to it [that] seemed to be located very close to where the students were sitting, on their eye level. The presenter at Lowell presented to the camera directly and did not present to the audience in their classroom. The other students at Lowell were looking at another monitor to see their fellow classmates’ presentation.

Technological difficulties created distractions and emphasized the difference between the two sites.

In one instance, the professor was making a comment, but the sound was off and no one on the Boston side was able to hear him. In a second incident, while one of the students from Lowell was giving her presentation, the camera at that site began focusing on everything in the room besides the students and the poster collage that she had prepared. The students at the Boston site found this amusing, and laughed out loud. In both occurrences, it gave the Boston students a chance to turn and get a word or two into their neighbors.

Technology also emphasized the different location of the two groups due to time delays:

The female student presenting makes a joke. The students in Boston laugh. After they are done laughing, I can hear the students in Lowell laugh. Technology separated the laughter of the two groups, reinforcing their difference.

Differences in how the faculty member addressed the two sites also emphasized their distinctiveness.

It appeared that the majority of times in which the professor and the remote students interacted were during technological problems. Of all the times in which technological difficulties occurred, only once did they affect the two sites in the same way. This caused confusion in the classroom. At one point, “The professor addresses Lowell telling the class, ‘we can’t hear the video when you can’t.’”

The majority of the times in which the professor and home students interacted were on an individual basis. This included when students came up to the professor individually and whispered questions to him, but also when the professor shook students’ hands or patted them on the back. These forms of non-verbal communication strengthened cohesion in the home classroom, while reinforcing the remote classroom as different.

Other than technology, differences between the universities the two groups attended created a sense of difference between the two groups. Several times, the professor had to talk to each class separately because of differences between the two universities.

The students in the remote site end class a week earlier than the students in the home site, so the professor had to announce “We’ll be saying good-bye to Lowell.” Also, the campus at the remote site is larger than the home site, so the professor would yell “‘Lowell’ you can go if you have a 2:30 class on campus.” The professor had to further differentiate between the groups fifteen minutes later when he announced that the home site students could leave.

In spite of the divisions between the sites, the social atmosphere in the class was positive. The students on both sides were supportive of one another when they were giving presentations, with the same intensity in their applause and the same level of attention paid to students on both sides.

Students reacted to distractions in the class with humor. The class did seem more attentive because everyone (on both sides) could see your every move or hear you if anything were said. Overall, I found that the students were considerate of one another.

Overall, these comments and observations indicate the importance of minimizing technological problems and of adopting new styles of instructor-student interaction in the ITV setting.

Online Courses

Interviews with faculty teaching online courses and students enrolled in these courses indicated that the method involved much work and careful preparation by faculty, was useful for many students, but was less useful for some students and in some courses.

Faculty Interview

The professor whose interview is featured was teaching an online course with 4 students. She found that online instruction did not require major changes in course content, but the manner of teaching was fundamentally altered. Her comments focused on the lack of face-to-face contact with students, but she also offered suggestions about faculty and student preparedness for online courses.

Lack of face-to-face contact with students deprived the instructor of an important communication channel that was available in the traditional classroom:

When you are teaching in the classroom, …I can tell if they are with me or not. When I look at their facial expressions, I can tell, if they are tired or not…. if a student understands or not. …You are more committed to the students, you can better understand them – that part is missing in the online course.

Now [in the online class] I could not see a single one of [my students]. I had to ask students more questions about the readings in order to determine whether they understood or not. I also liked the in-class interactions. Now all the interaction had to be in writing. …I feel something is missing from my class – intuitive understanding of each other.

Instruction without a classroom also made it difficult to encourage student participation.

In a classroom you ask students “Can you share your experiences?” and the students have no other choice than to answer. When I asked it online, just two students answered these questions-- shared their information – only 50%. At midterm I always ask my students for feedback: what do you think about this class, how can we improve it? This midterm I did the same thing – nobody responded to me.

So, in the classroom you can tell whether students want or do not want to do something, but online it is different. For one person it takes half a day to respond, for the other it takes two days to respond.

The lack of student participation also made it more difficult to assess students’ critical thinking skills online.

Critical thinking can be measured, when in the classroom you post the question, and maybe some controversial, provocative questions occur, and when students debate on them or have a dialogue. That part in online courses is missing, and I did not figure out how to measure that.

Teaching the online course proved to be much more time consuming than teaching in the classroom, because “everything” in her head that she relied on for classroom teaching “has to be done in writing. I was joking to one of my colleagues: just by teaching on line, I am going to write a book.”

Teaching online also meant making everything publicly available, which had again elicited more instructor effort even while it had some long-term benefits.

When I put my content online, I have to be very serious, because I know that everything that is online is public information. So I think about the accuracy and about the comprehensiveness. Because of that the content gets scrutinized--just as when you have to write a paper: you have to check the accuracy, you have to check all the logical flow, and you have to check whether it is comprehensive or not, you want to have the most updated references.

The availability of “wonderful” online references was also cited as a “very helpful” aspect of teaching online.

Two students had dropped the course because they were unable to register, even though they had had an orientation session about accessing online resources. Another student who was asked to read something online didn’t know how to find the web site. The instructor urged that student skills be assessed before they try an online course and that adequate training and administrative support be available to students who have difficulties with the technology. A preliminary assessment could also help to ensure that students’ expectations were realistic.

I think we have to do a student assessment before enrolling them in an online course. Some people are visual, some people are audio-, some people just mechanical. It would be good to know this, before students take an online class. Some students take a computer-based class because it is the best way for them to learn. Others take it because they think they won’t have to go to class, won’t have to see the faculty members, will just have to answer some questions online, and that would be it. So I think it would be better to have a better idea about students’ motivations. Also I would like to have a better idea about their computer skills.

In spite of many specific reservations, this faculty member remained “very positive about the online course” and perceived it as beneficial to students who lived far away or could study only late at night. “You can base it [the justification for online courses] on the freedom of choice.”

Student Interviews

The online course experience was positive for many students; some even compared it favorably to traditional classes.

I liked the online course so much and found it so enjoyable, I would consider taking another online course just for the hell of it.

The online course holds my attention span more than the traditional class, it’s not like being [stuck] in the class listening to the professor talk.

I had many friends who took several courses and they had such a great experience with online courses.

But satisfaction was not universal.

She was not satisfied with the online course. She expected more from the instructor. She did get an “A” for the course but she felt that the students including herself did not get involved the way they should in the course.

Students commented on a variety of specific online course experiences. Flexibility was often seen as a very desirable feature, as reflected in several comments:

Well for one, you can work at your own speed. The other is that you can do it at any time, even if that means you are in your pajamas. It does not matter what you are wearing.

This online course was very convenient for me. I have a full-time job and I have two children. I did not have to go to school for the course, which was very convenient for me. I could stay home and do the schoolwork online in my own space and time. I did not want to go to school two or more days a week.

But the flexibility afforded by the online course format was not a desirable feature for every student respondent. The problem was the difficulty of distractions:

It is too easy to wander. I mean that you end up finding a lot of interesting links and sites and the next thing you know you are at those sites and not doing what you are supposed to be doing.

Student reservations about their online course experience focused on the diminished social interaction.

The lack of in-person social interaction was a common source of complaint:

I do feel that you are missing something. The online course is very impersonal and there is not much contact.

In traditional courses I participated more in the class. Unlike online courses, in traditional courses I learned more from my classmates and developed friendship with my peers in class. For this online course it seemed that people preferred to work on their own.

I did not enjoy too much of the online discussion because many students did not prepare for the online discussion group and they keep changing the focus of the online discussion to something else. The online discussion group was unorganized.

The problem is that when I email to my classmates, there is no way of knowing if they got my message.

Reactions to the diminished social interaction found in a traditional classroom were influenced by specific course components:

We did have a couple of informal meetings with other students and professors and that really helped.

The respondent’s course did not have it [online class discussion] and the interaction with the professor and the classmates was more limited than it would have been otherwise.

Whether or not the faculty member teaching the online course responded readily to students appeared to be an important influence on the course experience:

I do get the professor’s perspective and he e-mails us all the time with concerns regarding the course.

When I email him [the professor], he is quick to reply, so I don’t have any complaints about that.

Lack of faculty feedback seemed to result in dissatisfaction.

Another disadvantage is that there is no feedback. It is difficult to find answers to questions you might have. You can e-mail someone, but you do not know when he or she will be answering you. Sometimes it becomes very frustrating.

She felt that there was lack of communication between the instructor and students in the course.

Overall, the interview data indicate the challenges created by the lack of face-to-face social interaction and greater dependence on technology in shaping the instructional process and the reactions of students in the ITV classroom. Availability of the online instructor and his or her willingness to respond to student inquiries helped to reduce feelings of isolation

Survey Findings

The quantitative survey results provide a view of student attitudes and engagement in online and ITV courses that is largely consistent with that provided by the qualitative interviews and observations.

Bases of Interest

There were few differences between the social background characteristics of the students in the traditional and ITV classes, with the exception that the ITV students were more likely to be female and white and less likely to be employed. However, there were numerous differences between the online students and those in the traditional and ITV classes (table 1). Online students were more likely to be white, older, married women with dependent children.. All of them were employed and most lived more than 10 miles from the campus. Over 90% of the online students had at least three of these “predisposing characteristics,” compared to just one-third of the students in the traditional and ITV classes. In addition, online students were much more likely to be attending UMass Boston on a part-time basis. They also scored higher on the scales measuring self-reported ease of using technology and frequency of computer usage.

The differences between the online and campus-based students confirm the expectation that enrollment in online courses will reflect the benefits and costs of taking courses online rather than on campus. Distance, employment status, and family responsibilities all seem important. In addition, familiarity with computers is critical. The lower enrollment rate of students who have minority racial identities (most of whom [9] were Asian; only two identified as black) is not a consequence of lower levels of computer usage or familiarity, but further analysis suggests it may reflect a shorter average commute.

Table 1

Student Background by Class type

	Traditional	Online	ITV
Single	100%	87%	100%
Any dependent children	5%	27%	0%
Female	25%	73%	50%
Minority ethnicity	45%	13%	25%
Age (18-25)	90%	53%	82%
Employed	95%	100%	41%
Distance to school: 11 + miles	35%	58%	41%
*3+ Predisposing characteristics*	35%	93%	36%

Part-time student	0%	67%	9%
Learn technology easily	30%	73%	41%
Computer usage	3.1	3.5	2.6
N of cases	20	15	22

*The differences summarized in each row are statistically significant at the .05 level (chi-square test, 2-tailed).

About half of the students who were enrolled in either the traditional or the ITV course expressed an interest in taking an online course, even if there were no in-person meetings (figure 1). Among those currently in an online course, about three-quarters were apparently interested in taking another.

Figure 1

The strongest influence on interest in online courses was the extent of student computer usage (figure 2).

Figure 2

Most students in the study sample were accustomed to using computers for a variety of tasks. More than 80% were “very familiar” with e-mail, internet usage, and word processing (figure 3). Just under half were familiar with spreadsheets, web-based learning, and computer games.

Figure 3

This familiarity with computer applications was reflected in student reports on their learning style. Almost all were comfortable using computers for basic tasks like word processing and e-mail, and three-quarters were comfortable with using computers for educational purposes (figure 4). About half of the respondents reported that they were “mostly or always” successful at the types of self-directed learning tasks that are required in online courses (such as “independent learning,” and “time management.”)

These responses suggest there is substantial potential for increasing the instructional use of computers, but that many students would not feel comfortable with this form of pedagogy. In an effort to improve readiness for online instruction, the Continuing Education office sent all students enrolled in online courses an introductory information packet. Among students in the three classes studied, most had understood the materials completely; only one reported not receiving them (figure 5). However, only 3 of the 14 online students recalled being invited to attend an on-campus orientation session and only one had actually attended.

Figure 5

Social Interaction

Online students reported a markedly different experience in terms of social interaction. Few in the online class contacted classmates outside of class often, compared to the traditional class (although ITV students also rated their contact with classmates outside of class as infrequent) (figure 6).

Figure 6

Online students were even more distinctive in terms of interaction with other students and the professor during class. Online students scored much lower on indices of interaction with other students and the instructor than did students in either the traditional or the ITV course (figure 7).

Figure 7

In spite of their lower levels of contact outside of class, online students reported that they participated in class discussion even more than did students in the traditional class, and as much as students in the ITV class (figure 8).

Figure 8

Satisfaction

Course satisfaction was high for all three types of classes (figure 9). Almost nine in ten students were satisfied with their course overall and with the way it was taught; levels of satisfaction with the technology and materials used in the course were slightly lower for the traditional and ITV classes but were much higher for the online classes.

Figure 9

Students also tended to be satisfied with online course features, but a higher proportion of students rated themselves very satisfied with the professor than with interaction with classmates or with technological problems (figure 10). About half were dissatisfied with course costs.

Figure 10

Online course satisfaction also increased with technical proficiency (figure 11).

Figure 11

Satisfaction with online course features was also higher for students who reported that they had read and understood completely the introductory course preparatory materials sent out before their course began (figure 12).

Across the three types of classes, there was also a positive relationship between positive perceptions of interaction with the teacher and overall course satisfaction (figure 13)---a relationship that occurred within each class type, although it was statistically significant only for the sample as a whole. However, perceptions of positive interaction with classmates was not related to overall course satisfaction for the sample as a whole or for the ITV class, and had only a weak positive association for the regular and online classes (table not shown).

Conclusions

Modern information technology has provided higher education with both new opportunities and additional complications. Findings in the class project indicate that students who otherwise find it difficult to attend classes on campus are attracted to online courses, just as students on campuses where a course is otherwise inaccessible find great benefit from the opportunity for a cross-campus class that is made possible by ITV. It is also clear from this study that both online and ITV classes can provide many students with an instructional experience that is perceived to be as educationally rewarding and satisfying as the experience of a traditional class. These findings replicate those reported in formal research about online instruction

But the different modes of technology-enhanced instruction are not for everyone and the experience of such instruction can be undermined for many participants by problems in course organization. Students who are inexperienced with computer use and/or Internet access procedures can find it difficult to participate effectively in online classes, as formal research studies have found. Although the distribution of information materials by Continuing Education in advance of these courses seemed to have had a beneficial impact, faculty teaching online urge a screening process to ensure that interested students are prepared for the type of work involved. Technological problems in ITV classrooms also create immediate problems for effective instruction.

Current information technology creates some unavoidable barriers to social interaction and hence to the most satisfying type of course experience for many students. Students at the different ITV sites participating in the same course do not seem to develop much of a sense of participation in a common venture with students at the other sites. Social interaction among students seems lower to participants in online classes than to those in either ITV or regular classes, although this perception does not seem to prevent participation in class that is as frequent as in the other types of class.

As formal research studies have indicated, teacher-student interaction seems to be a particularly important contributor to course satisfaction, and it is a component that varies among online courses. When online course instructors are able to appear to be readily available online to students, student satisfaction is high. Student interviews also indicate that courses that focus on value-laden issues, as in the ethics of professional practice, may seem to be delivered inappropriately through the online medium.

So both ITV and online instruction seem to have a viable niche in coursework offered at UMass Boston. These modes of course delivery can work for many students, even though they are not appropriate for all students nor for all types of courses. It is also clear that these forms of instruction can be improved by attention to student preparation and by conscientious instructor participation, and that systematic research can help to chart the most productive directions for change.

References*

Abrahamson, C.E. 1998. “Issues in Interactive Communication in Distance Education.” College Student Journal, 32:33-42.

Alavi, Maryam, and Leidner, Dorothy E. 2001. “Research Commentary: Technology Mediated Learning—A Call for Greater Depth and Breadth of Research.” Information Systems Research 12(1):1-10.

Anderson, R. H., Bikson,T. K., Law, S. A. & Mitchell, B. M. 1995. Universal Access to E-mail: Feasibility and Societal Implications. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Applebome, Peter. 1999. “The Online Revolution is Not the End of Civilization as We Know It. But Almost.” The New York Times, Education Life, April 4:26-30.

Attewell, P. & Rule, J. 1984. “Computing and Organizations: What We Know and What We Don't Know.” Communication of the ACM, 27, 1184–1192.

Bell, D. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

Bendig, A. W. 1962. “The Pittsburgh Scales of Social Extraversion, Introversion and Emotionality.” The Journal of Psychology, 53, 199–209.

Beniger, J. R. 1987. “Personalization of Mass Media and the Growth of Pseudo-Community. Communication Research, 14, 352–371.

Benson, Angela and Wright, Elizabeth. 1999. “Pedagogy and Policy in the Age of the Wired Professor”. THE Journal (Technological Horizons in Education, 27(4): 60-66.

Boston Globe. 2001. “Census Sees Leap in Homes Using the Web from ’98 to 2000.” p. C4, September 6.

Bower, B.L. and Kamata, A. 2000. “Factors Influencing Students Satisfaction with Online Course.” Academic Exchange Quaterly, 4:54-58.

Bray, Hiawatha. 1999. “Plugging in to the Electronic Campus.” The Boston Globe Magazine, April 11:20-30.

Brown, Robert. 1999. “Getting the Most out of Online Learning.” Infoworld, 21:119.

Brush TA & Uden L. 2000. “Using Computer-Mediated Communications to Enhance Instructional Design Classes: A Case Study.” International Journal of Instructional Media 27: 157-164.

Comeaux, Patricia. 1995. “The Impact of an Interactive Distance Learning Network on Classroom Communication.” Communication Education 44: 353-361.

Compeau, Deborah R. and Higgins, Christopher A. 1995. “Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test.” MIS Quarterly 19(2): 189-211.

Coogle, Constance L., Nancy J. Osgood, Iris A. Parham, Helen E. Wood, et al. 1996. “The Effectiveness of Videoconferencing in Geriatric Alcoholism Education” Gerontology and Geriatrics Education 16: 73-83.

DiMaggio, Paul, et al. 2001. “Social Implications of the Internet.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:307-336.

Eddy, John Paul, and Donald Spaulding. 1996. “Internet, computers, distance

education and people failure: research on technology.” Education 116:

Farber J: “The third cycle: An education and distance learning.” Sociological Perspectives 41: 797-819, 1998.

Farber, Jerry. 1998. “On Education and Distance Learning” Sociological Perspectives 41(4): 797-814.

Guernsey, Lisa. 2001. “Cyberspace Isn’t So Lonely After All.” The New York Times, July 26: C1, C5.

Hafner, Katie. 2002. “Lessons Learned the Hard Way at Dot-Com University.” The New York Times, May 2:E1, E8.

Hammon, Darrel L. and Steven K. Albiston. 1998. Completing Graduate School Long Distance. California: Sage Publication, Inc.

Hawkins, Brian L. 2000. “Distributed learning and institutional restructuring.” Educom Review, July/August:2-15, 42-44.

Haythornthwaite, C. Kazmer, M.M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. 2000. “Community Development among distance learners: temporal and technological differences.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 6:1083-1101.

Hearn, Greg, and Scott, David. 1998. “Students staying home.” Futures 30(7):731-737.

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Barry Wellman. 1997. “Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom.” Communications of the ACM, 40(9):44-50.

Horton, Laura. 2000. “Providing Access To Graduate Education Using Computer Mediated Communication.” International Journal of Instructional Medi,. 27 (3):235

Jaffee, David. 1997. Asynchronous learning: technology and pedagogical strategy in a distance learning course. Teaching Sociology 25(4):262-277.

Kerry, Trevor and Judith Farrow. 1996. “Changes in Initial Teacher Training Students’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of School-Based Mentoring over Time” Educational Studies 22(1): 99-110.

Kher-Durlabhji, Neelam and Lorna J. Lacina-Gifford. 1996. “Beam me up Scottie: Professors’ and Students Experiences with Distance Learning” Research in the Schools 3(2): 35-39.

Kling, Rob and Lamb, Roberta. 1996. Analyzing alternate visions of electronic publishing and digital libraries. Pp. 17-54 in Peck, Robin, ed. Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Koszalka TA. 2001. “Effect of computer-mediated communications on teachers’ attitudes toward using web resources in the classroom.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 28: 95-105.

Kraut, Robert, V. Lundmark, M. Patterson, S. Kiesler, T. Mukopadhyay, and W. Scherlis. 1998. “A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?” American Psychologist, 53:1017-1031.

Kubey, R. W., M. J. Lavin, and J. R. Barrows. 2001. “Internet Use and Collegiate Academic Performance Decrements: Early Findings.” Journal of Communication. Oxford, Journals on line.

Levine, Arthur. 2000. “The Soul of a New University.” The New York Times, March 13:A25.

Mael, F.A., & Ashforth, B.E. 1992. “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

Mariani, Matthew. 2001. Distance learning postsecondary education: Learning whenever, wherever. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Summer 2001 v45 i2 p2

McHenry, Lynnea and Mary Bozik. 1995. “Communicating at a Distance: A Study of Interaction in a Distance Education Classroom” Communication Education 44: 362-371.

McKersie, Robert B. and Nils Olaya Fonstad. 1997. “Teaching Negotiation Theory and Skills over the Internet” Negotiation Journal 13(4): 363-368.

Mills, Brett D. 1998. “Comparing Optimism and Pessimism of Students in Distance-Learning and On Campus” Psychological Reports 83: 1425-1426.

Morahan-Martin , J. & Schumacher, P. 2000. Incidence and Correlates of Pathological Internet Use among College Students. Computers in Human Behavior. 16:13-29.

Mukerji, Chandra and Bart Simon. 1998. “Out of the Limelight: Discredited Communities and Informal Communication on the Internet.” Sociological Inquiry, 68(2):258-273.

National Center for Education Statistics. 1998. Statistical Analysis Report: Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions. October. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/distance/index.html

Nie, Normah H. and Lutz Erbring. 2000. Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society. www.stanford.edu/group/siqss, February 17.

Papacharissi, Zizi and Alan M. Rubin. 2000. “Predictors of Internet Use.” Journal of Telecommunications, 7:73-82.

Perry, Ronald W. 1998. Diffusion Theories in Encyclopedia of Sociology. Edited by Edgar F. Borgatta and Marie L. Borgatta. New York: Macmillan.

Pew Research Center. 2001. Summary of Findings. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project, www.pewinternet.org, September 25.

Phillips, Vicky. 1998. “Online Universities Teach Knowledge Beyond the Books.” www.geteducated.com/articles/hr98.htm. October 17, 2001.

Phillips, Vicky. 2000. “Education in the Electronic Ether: On Being a Virtual Professor.” www.geteducated.com/articles/virtprof.htm. October 17, 2001.

Piotrowski, Chris and Stephen J. Vodanovich. 2000. “Are the Reported Barriers to Internet-Based Instruction Warranted?: A Synthesis of Recent Research” Education 121: 48.

Prato, Cate Coulacos. 2001. “The E-Learning Road: Universities Integrating Classes with an Online Component at Rapid Rate.” Boston Globe, July 15, B7, B10.

Raney, Rebecca Fairley. 2000. “Study Finds Internet of Social Benefit to Users.” The New York Times, May 11, p. E7.

Rosenwald, Michael. 2001. “Long-Distance Teamwork.” The Boston Sunday Globe, April 29: J1, J16.

Sankaran SR, Sankaran D & Bui TX. 2000. “Effect of student attitude to course format on learning performance: An empirical study in web vs. lecture instruction.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 27: 66-79.

Saunders, Christopher 2000. “The Relationship of Internet Use to Depression and Social Isolation Among Adolescents”. Adolescence 35:203.

Seely Brown, John and Duguid, Paul. 1999. The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Shebliske, Wayne, Jeffrey Jordan, Barry Coettl and Eric Day. 1999. “Cognitive and Social Influences in Training Teams for Complex Skills” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 5 (3): 227-249.

Skolnik, Michael L. 1998. Higher education in the 21^st century. Futures 30(7):635-650.

Smith, Glenn, David Ferguson and Mieke Caris. 2001. “Online vs Face-to-Face” Technological Horizons in Education Journal 28(9): 18.

Snell J & Mekies S. 1999. “Online education and academic rigor: A research note.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 26: 194-196.

Spooner, Fred, Luann Jordan, Bob Algozzine and Melba Spooner. 1999. “Student Ratings of Instruction in Distance Learning and On-Campus Classes” Journal of Educational Research 92(3): 132-140

Stokes, Fay Elizabeth. “An Evaluative Case Study of Distance Learning and its Impact on Students’ Needs and Development.” In Disseartation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 59 (7-A): 2462, 1999.

Strauss, Susan G. 1996. “Getting a Clue: The Effects of Communication Media and Information Distribution on Participation and Performance in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups.” Small Groups Research. 27(1):115-142.

National Geographic. 2000. Survey 2000. National Geographic.com. wysiwyg://10http://survey2000.

Teh, George 1999. “Assessing Students Perceptions of Internet-Based Online Learning Environments”. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(4): 397-402.

Terry, Neil. 2000. “Do Virtual Courses Lead to Virtual Learning?” Journal of Business Education 1: 50-58

Terry, Neil. 2001. “Assessing Enrollment and Attrition Rates for the Online MBA” T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education) 28(7): 64

Witmer, Diane F. 1998. “Staying connected: A case study of distance learning for student interns.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communications 4:Np.

Witt, Paul L. and Wheeless, Lawrence R. 1999. “Nonverbal Communication Expectancies about Teachers and Enrollment Behavior in Distance Learning” Communication Education 48(2): 149-154.

*This extensive bibliography was compiled from student papers is provided for the benefit of those colleagues who may wish to explore these issues themselves.