| 
Conclusion:
Is discussion
board-based facilitated small group work practical for instructors of
courses with large enrollments?
The answer to this
question is perhaps the most interesting part of the story and is the impetus
for this research.
Unfortunately, the answer to
the underlined question above can’t yet be given, simply because
there is but one data point: 214 facilitator hours yields one 2-week discussion
board assignment for 669 students (not counting midterm and end of semester
survey data workup). Fortunately, this experiment is being repeated this
Spring Semester 2004 with a student enrollment of approximately 330+ students
and may be repeated in Summer Semester with fewer students still. A facilitator
time/student enrollment ratio can then be established that would give significant
insight as to how practical single facilitator small group discussion board-based
work is in large enrollment classes. That ratio would give course designers
an idea of what it would take to implement, sustain, and support this type
of student work throughout a course curriculum for classes of all sizes.
The good news is that it can
be done by a single facilitator and it can be done better. As mentioned
earlier, not all of the data collected in this experiment was reported
here. One, there were many other questions in the surveys that gave useful
information about various details and elements of the assignment that could
have been asked more precisely. Two, deadlines will be changed to other
days of the week besides Fridays – this will hopefully increase student
participation in surveys and in the assignment in a more timely fashion.
Three, the amount of undergraduate teaching assistant support overall in
the course changes from semester to semester. There is the potential for
increased student perception in value for the assignment in semesters where
teaching assistant availability decreases while instructor availability
remains the same. Four, increased integration of discussion board-based
group work (or discussion board work in general) over the course of the
semester (not just one time) may improve student perceptions of the assignment’s
value. Five, allowing students to utilize graphics or attachments as part
of their answers may enhance the learning experience for those students
who are visual learners.
Finally, perhaps Table
8 shows one of the best reasons of all for doing this type of work.
Of those who used the discussion boards through the semester, 82.4% of
the students found them at least “Mildly Useful” with 50.2%
of those rating them “Useful” or better. Furthermore, of
the distance students, 97.2% found the discussion boards at least “Mildly
Useful” with 61.1% rating them “Useful” or better.
When one begins with the fact that only 45.1% of the entering class had
any discussion board experience at all and ends with
81.8% of the students having at least some confidence in using discussion
boards, one underlying fact remains: if a student doesn’t leave
an organic chemistry course with any confidence in organic chemistry,
at least he or she can obtain some confidence in learning and using a
technological and educational tool that will likely be a vital part of
his/her future. Student learning of that kind is always worth the effort
and time.
Acknowledgements:
The author would like to give
thanks to Professor Stanley Smith for his mentorship and advice. Sincere
thanks to Professor Jeff Moore for his efforts and collaboration in teaching
the course. Grateful thanks to Dr. Patricia Phillips-Batoma for her expertise
and help in the use of WebCT and in the maintenance of the course website
as a whole. Also, thanks to Dr. Iris Stovall and the Illinois Online Network
for the opportunity to share this research with the online educational
world.
References:
1. a) Schamber, L. Delivery
Systems for Distance Education. ERIC Digests http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed304111.html;
b) Oblinger, D.G. The Nature and Purpose of Distance Education.
Available: http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=647
2. Wang, A.Y.; Newlin, M.H. Predictors of Performance in the Virtual Classroom. T.H.E.
Journal, Available: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A4023.cfm
3. Renzi, S.; Klobas, J. (2000) Steps Toward Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning for Large Classes. Educational Technology & Society 3
(3). Available: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/d07.html
4. a) Funaro, G.M.; Montrell, F. (1999) Pedagogical Roles and Implementation
Guidelines for Online Communication Tools. ALN Magazine, 3 (2). Available: http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v3n2/funaro.asp;
b) Edelstein, S.; Edwards, J (2002) If You Build It, They Will Come: Building
Learning Communities Through Threaded Discussions. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 5 (1). Available: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/edelstein51.html;
c) Berge, Z.L. (2001) The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator. eModerators. Available: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html;
d) Palloff, R.M.; Pratt, K. Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom.
Available: http://itlearningspace-scot.ac.uk/courses/keynotes/module1/main.cfm
5. Britt, K. Tool Talk. Available: http://webct.com/service/viewcontentframe?contentID=2515824
6. Bonk, C.J.; et al. Advances in Pedagogy: Finding the Instructor in Post-Secondary
Online Learning. AERA 2000 http://www.indiana.edu/~bobweb/temp/online_ped.pdf
7. West, M.L.; Luetkehans, L. Ten Great Tips for Facilitating Virtual Learning
Teams. PSD Corps. Available:http://www.psdcorp.com/dislearn.htm
8. a) Available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadtem2.html;
b) Available: http://www-honors.ucdavis.edu/vohs/sec04.html;
c) Available: http://www-honors.ucdavis.edu/vohs/sec04-1.html
9. a) Teaching Through Technology Guide: Getting Started with Learning Technology. Teaching
Support Services. Available: http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/TGuides/ltintrotips.html;
b) Smith, B.D.; Jacobs, D.C. (2003) TextRev: A Window into How General and
Organic Chemistry Students Use Textbook Resources. J. Chem. Ed. 80 (1),
99-102.
Background
Objectives of the Work
The WebCT Assignment
Experimental Design
Facilitation of the Assignment
Grading the Assignment
Results - Student Surveys
Acknowledgements and References
 Printer
Friendly Version
|
