In the preceding chapter, I presented in some detail the ways students meet the online
writing class in terms of seven major categories: online technology, writing processes,
writing products, communication, feedback, encouragement, and revelation. Consistent with
the belief that one should develop an understanding of
generalization that is congruent with the basic characteristics of qualitative
inquiry" (Merriam, 1998, p. 41), in this final chapter, I discuss the online
first-year composition student's experience in terms of the seven aforementioned
categories. The goal is to develop a deep and rich understanding of the student
experience.
The mix of opinions and research in this category lends itself to interpretation. On
one hand, there are those who believe that going online will change the way people think
and relate with one another (Heim, 1993; Johnson, 1995; Selfe, 1992); on the other, some
educators are skeptic, believing that online instruction interferes with learning (Bolter,
1991; Landow, 1992). In terms of this class, the technological aspects created
difficulties for all students in varying degrees, yet students worked with those
difficulties well, showing with modifications, online instruction can prove an effective
means of instruction.
Difficulties in Interpretation of Assignments. One of the first concerns noted
by many researchers is that students will have difficulties understanding assignments that
are delivered only through text without benefit of thorough explanations by the
instructor. Melinda, Sue, Julie, Monica, and Rhonda had consistent difficulties throughout
the course. Of these five, Monica, Rhonda, and Sue scored lowest on the Online Attitude
survey. Moreover, as noted previously, comprehension of written text requires that readers
decode the text provided (Burke, 1966; Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Winderowd, 1970); and
in order to do so, they must have a context. Even though students may consider themselves
good readers, as did Rhonda, the type of reading necessary for an online class requires
more than just good comprehension skills. Students must also learn to negotiate meaning in
written online instruction.
Moreover, students received their assignments through email. The assignments were
sometimes complex, entailing many types of skills and requirements. The messages were
single-spaced and written in the vernacular of the class with the use of many
abbreviations and acronyms. The assignments that were the most complex, Assignments Three
and Five, required many messages of clarification; finally, the teacher sent a short,
bulleted message, with the gist of the assignments which alleviated the confusion. From
this experience then, future educators may want to provide two types of documents for
their online students: (a) an in-depth assignment, lecture, or explanation, and (b) a
shortened, double-spaced summary or bulleted list of the key points and ideas. Moreover,
providing students will an audio recording of the information will help those who need
further help.
Reading and Understanding Online Text. Only one student had
consistent trouble with reading skills and the necessary linguistic mastery. As the only
second-language writer in the class, Monica encountered problems in each and every
setting. An admitted poor reader, she had trouble with reading assignments, peer email,
and participating in the timed debate. Kasper (1999) reminds us to succeed in college,
second-language students must develop a range of skills, including those of electronic
research. In order to help second-language students gain mastery, instructors need to
provide opportunities for them, so they "become more familiar with and practice the
linguistic structures and vocabulary in academic texts" (p. 406). However, in this
class, no accommodations were made for the non-native, English speaking student. She was
expected to perform as the others in the class.
As mentioned previously, her final message to the class shows that those expectations
may have been unreasonable:
To communicate with via-image (email) is very hard for us to concerate what are we
doing. Because listen and talk together is the best way to coomunicate with each other.
Since
Monica chose to enroll in the class, her instructor may have believed she understood what
the demands of the class entailed. Obviously, she didn't, as this passage shows. Future
online educators may want to take heed of incoming students like Monica. Concurrent
face-to-face study groups could be formed to aid those who require more direct methods of
instructions, including audio input. Taped lectures available for download or purchase at
the bookstore could be offered, or on-site tutors who have been instructed in the course's
content can be made accessible for students like Monica who want to experience the online
class but need more linguistic knowledge.
"Etalk" versus Rhetoric.
Increasingly, "Etalk" surrounds us daily. We see it on the television screen,
and we read it in newspapers and magazines. Indeed there is a place for it; however, the
academic classroom is not the site for such informal discourse.
Students who were most computers savvy, Steve and Robert, sent messages full of
"etalk" during the first few lessons. As reported previously, Steve, attending
to the audience, once even queried as to whether this type of discourse was appropriate,
"Hehe kewl, I wonder if we gonna get busted for speaking the blemmished tongue, in
ENG class . . . (poke)?" In addition, the instructor sent messages through which he
did not adhere to the traditional expected form; at times, he used all lower case letters;
he also supplemented his text with emoticons (icons which represent emotion.) Furthermore,
one student used "etalk" when he wanted to express encouragement or signal that
he was teasing about a topic; thus, showing that he understood the rhetorical demands of
an audience. Moreover, the students who were abusers of "etalk," gained an
appropriate academic discourse as the course continued. They, too, began to use
"etalk" only when the rhetorical situation called for it. Other than Steve's
comment, no directed remarks discouraged its use; however, the class situation helped the
wayward "etalk" users mend their ways.
Problems of Unstructured Time and the "Newness ".
Another area impacted by the computer was that of discipline and structure. Throughout the
course of the semester, Robert and Steve neglected their responsibilities as students.
They were late in turning in assignments if they turned them in at all. Steve did not
complete one task in the final unit, and Robert did little after unit three but give
feedback and join in the debate.
Both commented about their extensive use and understanding of computers, yet this may
have been their downfall. In my own experience of teaching online class for five years,
many students who think technology is the primary objective in the online class tend to
neglect their class work. While other students did have trouble with turning assignments
in on time, most of them completed their tasks to varying degrees.
One of the questions on the Online Attitude Survey addressed this category. The
question asks students
I am someone who . . .
(a) often gets things done ahead of time.
(b) needs reminding to get things done on time.
(c) puts things off until the last minute.
All of the students who had trouble in this area answered
either b or c on this question.
Educators then can help their students stay on task by offering structured
mini-assignments with a degree of flexibility. For example, they could offer points for
commenting on a weekly discussion board, allowing students to post responses sometimes
during the week. Moreover, providing one or two make-up assignments could be offered to
replace ones that wayward students may have missed during the beginning of the course when
the "newness" of going online interfered with completion of tasks. For students
like Steve and Robert, weekly check-ins with the instructor and strict observation of
deadlines might be suggested.
Method of Delivery: Technology. The one area which caused the
most frustration was the actual machinery of the class: computers, working or not working;
Internet access, systems being up or down; and a lack of student familiarity with common
protocols.
During the first and second lessons, most of the problems in this area were with
students who did not know how to perform certain tasks. While all knew how to access the
web and use email, many did not understand how to ftp, how to attach documents, or how the
network functioned. The instructor tried to help by sending long complicated "how
to" messages but neglected to take his audience into consideration. He confused them
further. For example, one student wanted to know how to append peer comments to the end of
her final draft of her first essay, which was a requirement before submitting it. The
instructor responded by sending a detailed three page, single-spaced document about how to
perform this task. The student received the message then emailed, "Well, how do I do
this on a Mac?" This involved another exchange of messages between the student and
instructor. Shortly thereafter, another participant sent a message inquiring how to append
comments in the Computer Lab since it was a different operating system altogether. Again
the teacher sent another three page, single-spaced document.
In addition to these basic processes, problems occurred with the system being down and
with email being misdirected or not received. This caused a certain degree of frustration
and anxiety. Recall Monica's comment of checking the email eight times to see if her
message had been received, and Julie's flub of sending the same five page document four
different times. Moreover, students had to deal with a barrage of email that they had to
sift and sieve through to discover what was pertinent. During one weekend, ninety messages
were exchanged in the class. Then there was the problem of one computer not being able to
translate the machine language sent between two different systems.
While students were able to develop the required expertise, they could not influence
other computer problems. Throughout the class students had trouble with systems, email,
and the Internet being up and down. During one of the most crucial assignments, the final
timed exam, the system went down.
While all of these concerns are problematic, students did adapt to them, and not one of
them felt that these types of machinery dependent problems were a hindrance, except when
the teacher did not make accommodations for machine failure. They may have felt frustrated
and anxious, but they seemed to understand it was part of the territory. For example, one
student's evaluation of the class complained about almost everything, except these types
of occurrences. This may be explained by one of the questions on the Online Attitude
survey. When asked their comfort level with trying new technology, all answered that they
looked forward to learning the new skill.
Despite the lack of complaints, some ways to work with the problems inherent in the
delivery of the class are in order. The first would be to have a mirror site where
materials can be accessed if the primary server goes down. Second, allow leeway in the
timing of assignments, so that students are not constrained to produced something in a
one-day situation, or between certain times on a particular day. For example, if a final
exam had to take place between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., allow students to go to a proctored
area, where technology can be used but is not required. Third, in the initial contact with
students, inform students that the machines may go down; email may not work; the system
may crash, and remind them not to panic, as everything will work eventually. Show students
that these things are manageable. Fourth, post clear instructions, in short, succinct
prose, for all types of machines and systems. Finally, direct students to the computer
aides on campus for help with their technological needs.
As noted previously, the online writing class has many purposes: to socialize the
student to the academic community (Bizzell, 1982; Harris, 1989), to learn the process of
writing (Emig, 1971), and to produce "good" writing. This category addresses two
of the above: acclimation to the writing community and the process of writing.
To describe these rather amorphous terms, I have chosen to use Emig's (1971) terms. As
noted, two dominant modes of composing are the extensive mode, which focuses on conveying
a message to an intended audience and the reflexive mode, which focuses on the writer's
thoughts and feelings.
Extensive mode. Anytime students
concerned themselves with conveying a message to an audience, they were going through a
rather heady process of figuring out the needs of the audience. To do so, they had to
transmit their thoughts with a language common to the class. We see students learning the
language etiquette or "writing talk," of the class when they use terms like
brainstorming, rough draft, and works cited, terms particular to the field of rhetoric.
"Writing talk" enabled students to converse with others with a shared
vocabulary. When Steve stated, "I anxiously wait your feedback," each person in
the class knows that Steve has written something and seeks their comments upon it. Not
only that, but also those of us who have taken similar class, will also be part of that
discourse, as we, too, have learned the terms necessary to communicate. If Melinda
mentions her thesis, we are to recognize that she has reached a decision about her topic.
These types of extensive comments create a shared, safe environment where everybody can
participate because we share common terms and rules of behavior.
During the beginning of the course, few comments were made by students in regards to
their processes. The teacher provided two separate assignments geared to the acquisition
of terminology, and by the end of the course, everyone contributed in this area, showing
that they had gained the linguistic knowledge to express themselves if the need arose.
Reflexive mode. The reflexive mode is a time of scribbling
and scratching out. In an online class, the mode of communication is writing, thus,
students share with each other their ideas and musings. Many times, they asked for input
while seeking clarification or confirmation. In the midst of the process, they converse
about their own processes. During this course, each student spoke to how she or he
negotiated the writing process. Carl told us he was partial to thinking about his topic
for awhile, letting it simmer; Steve liked to "jam" on the computer," and
Rhonda enjoyed freewriting. Thus, we see that indeed students were meeting one of the
objectives of the class. However, one incidence stands out that may act as a warning sign
for instructors.
During Assignment Three, students were having trouble with coming up with topics, so
they were sharing their ideas with one another, brainstorming so to speak. In the
reflexive mode, Sue shared, "I'm still not sure what I should write about. I'm
considering understanding and being aware of people's disabilities, or closing down bars,
strip clubs to prevent fights and deaths. HELP!!!!!" Recall how the teacher
intervened with explicit directions and ideas.
Fifteen minutes later, Sue wrote, "Now I'm thinking about littering. Because that
bothers me very much. What do you guys think?" Twenty minutes after that, without any
more impetus from an outside source, "I've decided to do my topic on violence that's
associated with bars." Here we see someone in the throes of the process of the
reflexive mode; the teacher introduced his extensive opinion, not allowing Sue to come
completely to her own decisions. The teacher must have realized his mistake as he wrote,
"I think I'm 'talking too much.' I'd better step aside and give your classmates a
chance to give you feedback. Class?"
Julie had the same trouble; she wrote to the class in her email, "I think I'll do
my paper on teenage pregnancy or drugs and alcohol that affect teens. Is one or the other
a good topic? Help!" Even though the teacher had made the decision to not "talk
too much," she received a long message from him, with explicit ideas and opinions
which may have confused the situation rather than clarify as the next message indicates.
She wrote, "Everyone: I won't be able to email you my scenario #3 probably by Sunday.
I'll try to get it in as soon as I can. I really don't know what to talk about or how to
write it yet." Both Julie and Sue turned in rough drafts but neither completed a
final draft for the assignment. This incidence makes a case for creating a reserved space
for "student-talk," where they can feel free to express themselves without
teacher interference.
"Good" writing is another goal in the writing class. This category
encompasses that ideal and the more practical issues of exercises and other homework
geared to making students more knowledgeable about writing. Overall, only one student,
Melinda, completed all the assigned tasks. Others failed to comment on peer papers, or
neglected to turn in a draft, or missed a reading assignment/exercise. The apparent
factors that influenced this quality and quantity of work were many. In the first
assignment, students had difficulties with technology. Thus, Robert, Steve, and Rhonda did
not complete all of the tasks. In the second assignment, Julie, Melinda, and Monica
completed all the assignments despite the complexity of tasks and their troubles with
interpreting of the assignment.
Carl, Melinda, Steve, and Rhonda completed all of the third assignment. However, two
key circumstances occurred of note. First, the teacher reprimanded the class for their
failure of participating and of not reading the messages he sent. His message obviously
spurred some students to complete their tasks; however, the second event worked against
it. During this assignment, the teacher returned papers one and two.
While the length of time it took to return papers may not have affected all of the
students in the class, many of them were troubled by it. On the Online Attitude survey,
everyone in the class except Carl and Julie, had noted that they required instructor
feedback on their papers, "right away."
One of the remarks in a private email to me addresses this very issue. The student
stated that she felt unmotivated because of a lack of timely instructor response. Another
wanted more instructor feedback. When looking at the vast amount of time the instructor
had to spend reading emails, attending to lesser assignments, and addressing questions, it
is not surprising that paper grading fell behind. However, these students seemed to
require and want more timely instructor comments on their finished products, and while
there is no direct measure of the influence of two situations, surely they had a tacit
effect on the participation in the class.
Monica, Carl, Sue, Melinda, Rhonda, and Cassandra completed the fourth assignment.
However, the instructor had to revise the Assignment Four schedule four separate times to
meet the needs of the class. During the fifth assignment, Steve quit participating
completely; Robert offered feedback, and Monica contributed once to the debate, then
finished the final draft. In addition the instructor returned papers three and four to
students.
Completion is but one aspect of any assignment. Quality is another issue completely.
Participants had a variety of skills when they entered the class according to the
Analytical Scoring Guide. Every student except Carl and Steve improved in their writing
skill as measured by the Analytical Scoring Guide. Carl's step backward is easier to
explain than Steve's. When Carl entered the class, he had an exceptionally high writing
score. In many schools he would have "placed out" of the class, as he already
displayed the attributes needed for the first-year college student. For whatever reason,
he chose to stay in the class. As he learned new skills and ways of writing, he had to
merge his old ideas with new. Many times this blending of the two will cause a person to
take a step backward in their development. Additionally, the first essay he wrote was a
narrative; some writers have a natural ability to tell a story. However, the final essay
was persuasive which is more difficult to produce, calling upon a different type of
rhetorical skill (Berlin, 1969).
Steve's regression may be explained through his answers to the Writing Attitude Survey.
On the eight questions presented, six prompt for levels of comfort of the writer, i.e., do
you enjoy writing, do you have frequent practice writing, are you comfortable with
writing, do you write well, and do you write to communicate. Steve answered at the top of
the scale on each of these. Yet, his initial writing sample did not match the confidence
he displayed. The other two questions address audience awareness and the importance of
writing in the student's future. With both of these, he answered in the lower range. Here
then is a person who does not see the future value of writing "good," nor does
he seem aware of the importance of shaping his discourse for an intended audience. Indeed,
his prose for his avocation, computer networking, may have worked quite well, but when he
tried to apply those same skills in academic writing, the results may not have been what
he expected.
Berger (1962) stated that all forms of communication that are not face-to-face are
remote; thus, distant social relationships cannot promote the same degree of closeness (p.
28). However, Sproull and Kiesler (1989), among others, believe online learning helps us
learn to communicate better. This category attempted to address whether the distance
produced by the delivery method does indeed cause students to feel less involved than they
would if they had taken a tradition class.
Looking at the comments of the students as the class progressed showed an increasing
degree of "class talk." The very nature of the rhetorical/communication
situation, where the writer has a message she wants to transmit to an audience, creates an
immediacy that can't be denied. Because students have to write everything in this type of
class, who they are in relationship to others in the situation is apparent from the first.
Thus, Monica who was the most communicative in the class could not hide her dialectic
English. Misspellings and mixed verb tenses weaved their way throughout her discourse.
Steve's "etalk" which he slowly learned to temper with academic discourse
allowed us into the skateboard/computer persona he wanted to portray. Chris's dialogue,
sometimes formal and sometimes not, allowed others in the class insight into the family
man who loves his wife and child. Too, the topics students chose helped display each
person's personality. A common cartoon on the Internet that has been circling the globe
depicts a poodle sitting at the computer. The caption reads, "On the Internet, no one
knows if you are a dog." While it is true that we may not see the surfaces of people
when communicating with them online, what's underneath cannot be hidden.
When students walk into the traditional classroom, we "size" them up: age,
weight, complexion, gender, grooming, etc. It's our nature to do so. During the entire
class, the student may say little, other than obligatory remarks geared to the class
topic. If we are fortunate in the writing class, though the teacher is usually the only
one privy to that information, the student may chose to communicate more about herself but
not always. Sometimes, she leaves the classroom without making any kind of connection with
others in the class. The opposite happened in this online class. Students, as they engaged
in daily dialogue, shared more of themselves than they may have in the face-to-face class.
One student stated,
I do not mind not being able to discuss face
to face with the teacher and classmates. Some classmates probably will not turn up in
classroom classes. I find that I can read and re-read some of the classmates' work and
remarks until I am confident to give valid comments and sensible replies. Whereas in the
classroom, I will feel obliged to give spontaneous replies, which may not be useful.
Another commented, "I think that because we can only
communicate by writing that all of our writing skills have improved by that much more. We
are also learning a bit more about each other than we would otherwise."
On the downside, body language to help students interpret meaning is absent from the
online rhetorical situation; thus, a danger of misconstruing remarks arises. As Sue noted,
I have heard from some people that there are certain ways of
getting points across to others. Such as: When typing in capital letters, IT MEANS THAT
YOU ARE YELLING. I think that there should be some kind of list that everyone will know
about and follow. Also, when speaking to some one in person, emotions and tones of voices
let's the other person know whether he/she is angry, happy, sad, etc. The problem here is
that when typing a message to some one, they can only read what is written.
Yet, this isn't such a terrible
disadvantage if students are guided to respond rather than react. When they receive a
message where meaning is in doubt, they can temper their text or use emoticons, a list of
icons representing emotions, as mentioned by this student (Appendix A). By writing to the
author of the message for clarification, a true dialogue can occur, allowing
communication.
The only time in the class that communication did seem to
suffer was during Assignment Three when students were busy taking midterms and working on
the complex assignment. However, that does not mean students were not engaged in
discussion, as they did spend much time on tasks, feedback and such.
During the fifth assignment, much class discussion revolved around getting everyone
together for a farewell party. Everyone, even recalcitrant Steve, involved himself in the
planning of the occasion. We can assume that since the event did occur that these are the
actions of students who had indeed connected with one another.
Of all the categories of this research, findings in the category were the most
surprising to me. In the beginning when giving feedback, students relied on general
comments, stating that the paper was "good" or the idea was great. Very few,
with Carl a noted exception, offered helpful advice and direction. Conversely, most of
them requested feedback on their ideas and their papers despite the lack of specificity in
what they received from their peers. It's ironic that the area where students need the
most help is one that had the least information. I had not realized the value students
place on feedback.
As noted previously, students received little in the way of specific instruction in
terms of feedback, despite the instructor's stated importance of it in each of the five
lessons. Thus, they relied heavily upon corrective comments during the first two
assignments. The instructor sent a direct message during Assignment Three, instructing
students to give feedback that would encourage others in the revision process. Whether the
time in the class or the instruction changed the practices of students cannot be known;
however, the students moved away from corrective comments towards revisionist comments. By
the last paper, all students had given and received remarks that showed they had read and
understood the peers' thoughts. As Carl stated so succinctly, "What a heady
experience."
In a class that relies upon written feedback from peers, more attention needs to be
directed towards helping students make the movement from surface comments to structure and
content assessment. A directed discussion of sample essays as well as specific handouts
should be available before students must give feedback. Another way to ensure that
students participate could be through grading a student's feedback, though that may be
difficult in practice.
Throughout the course, students talked about writing, about feedback, and about
technology. They shared information about their families and their friends; some shared
ideas about their hopes and dreams. Only a few in the class stepped beyond those
boundaries and offered support to others. At the beginning of the class, during the first
two assignments, Monica was the cheerleader, and she often made kind comments about a
peer's work or ideas. Steve did the same. However, as the class progressed, encouragement
between peers declined. In fact, by the fourth assignment only Julie and Carl offered
comments to those who showed signs of distress due to the workload volume or computer
problems. Selfe (1992), as noted previously, stated that computer-mediated communication
creates opportunities for students towards a "larger world vision" and to
"see things from a different perspective" (p.155).
The only evidence of this may be found in student willingness to accept those who were
not as skilled as they were. While comments of encouragement were not frequent, students
were quite accepting of each other's foibles in terms of spelling, punctuation, and
grammar, especially after they learned to give effective feedback.
Messages where information of significance to individual students was shared informed
this category. Students disclosed the names of friends, family, and coworkers. Stories of
failed hopes and dreams surfaced. All students offered some of their histories to their
peers. Recalling Ong's (1982) precept that technologies contribute to an interior
transformation of consciousness (p.82), we see that students were more than just
communicating thoughts and ideas about the class and life, they reached deeper. Just as
Rich (1991) writes that we must delve deep to discover the jewels of the past, students
disclosed details which enabled others to understand themselves among others. The
instructor, apparently, had foresight to not intrude or comment upon these shared stories.
While this category did not contain numerous messages, the ones that it does include
provided a richness that may be impossible to replicate in a traditional classroom.
