Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42 – 52
Story of a conference: Distance education students' experiences in a departmental conference Marisa Exter ⁎, Nichole Harlin, Barbara Bichelmeyer Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, W. W. Wright Education Building, Room 2276 201 North Rose Avenue Bloomington, IN 47405-1006, USA Accepted 12 December 2007
Abstract This case study examines the impact of a program-wide event on the sense of community in a distance education program. The departmental conference examined in this study is intended to help students gain experience in sharing their ideas and plays a large role in building a sense of community among residential students and faculty. This study examines an effort to extend this community-building role to students enrolled in the department's fully online Distance Masters and Certificate programs. The study explores whether these students felt a need for such community-building experiences, what they gained from this experience, and what can be learned from what went well and what could be improved in the organization of the conference. Findings indicate that active participants felt an increased sense of community, but that not all students were interested in this type of community-building activity. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Online learning; Distance education; Distance education program; Sense of community; Graduate education; Post-secondary education; Social interaction; Community; Connectedness
This case study examines a graduate-student-run departmental conference at a large Midwestern US university. The conference started out as a class project in one of the department's residential courses. Its purpose is to provide a safe venue for graduate students to practice planning, organizing, attending, and presenting at professional conferences. Over the last 7 years, the conference has grown into a departmental activity that includes a conference coordinator, special events, and keynote speakers. The attendee population for the conference has grown over time to include residential PhD and Masters students, Distance Masters and Distance Certificate students, faculty, alumni, recruiters, and guests from other departments and universities. In previous years, each conference coordinator has put his or her own mark on the conference. In Spring 2007, the authors served as the conference coordinator, assistant conference coordinator, and faculty research advisor. Because of the first author's previous involvement in the department's Distance Education program ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (M. Exter),
[email protected] (N. Harlin),
[email protected] (B. Bichelmeyer). 1096-7516/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.12.003
evaluation and the second author's position as the Distance Education coordinator for the department, we decided to include students from the Distance Masters (a fully online Masters program) and Distance Certificate (an online non-degreeseeking program) in the planning and organizing of the conference by involving them in the conference planning committee and sub-committees. We felt that it would be valuable to understand what motivated students to become involved as volunteers or participants and how participation in this type of event impacted their experiences with the degree or certificate program as a whole. The organizers hoped that participation in this type of event would foster a program-level sense of community for the distance students, who do not have many opportunities to interact with others not enrolled in their courses. 1. Literature review Distance education has been traditionally defined as “instructions through print or electronic communications media to persons engaged in planned learning in a place or time different from that of the instructor or instructors” (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004, p. 358). However, as web-
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
based technologies mature and distance courses are used to teach more diverse subject matter, the definition of distance education is being expanded to include interactive, two-way communication (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). With the rise in the number of fully online degree programs from traditional universities, it has become important to determine how these programs can support other types of interactions which have long been seen as critical factors in traditional residential programs (Kuh, 2006; Rovai, 2002a). Retention issues are a particular concern for universities supporting distance education options. The dropout rate in distance education programs has been cited as anywhere between 10 and 50% in various studies (Berge & Huang, 2004; LudwigHardman & Dunlap, 2003; Raven, 2000; Rovai, 2002a,b; TylerSmith, 2006), and is generally assumed to be 10–20% higher than in traditional programs (Rovai, 2002b; Tyler-Smith, 2006). Reasons for retention issues are complex and include the students' backgrounds, student support available at the university level, as well as various types of interaction (Berge & Huang, 2004; Rovai, 2002b; Tyler-Smith, 2006). A few recent studies indicate the importance of a sense of community in student retention and success (Dawson, 2006; Shea, Sau Li, & Pickett, 2006). Within educational contexts, the concept of community plays a role at multiple levels. In a review of previous social psychology literature, Rovai (2002a) found the following common proposed features of sense of community: “... mutual interdependence among members, sense of belonging, connectedness, spirit, trust, interactivity, common expectations, shared values and goals, and overlapping histories among members” (p. 4). Wilson (2001) categorizes sense of community into what he called five learning groups: courses, learning cohorts, academic programs and schools, professional groups, and volunteer interest groups. Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap (2003) divide them into university-level and local social contexts. Wilson's courses learning group and Ludwig-Hardman's and Dunlap's local social contexts both refer to the sense of community with a single course. However, sense of community can also play an important role outside of individual courses and specific learning goals. Wilson refers to this in his learning groups as academic programs and schools. Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap refer to this as the university social context. For the purposes of this paper, we will refer to program-level community as the sense of community that students perceive outside of courses but within an academic department or degree program. Several authors suggest that program-level sense of community is vital to developing a quality distance education program (Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2001b; LudwigHardman & Dunlap, 2003; The Faculty Initiative, 1998; Wilson, 2001). The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (2001a) includes in its best practices recommendations “including off-campus students in institutional publications and events, including these students in definitions of the academic community through such mechanisms as student government representation, invitations to campus events including graduation ceremonies, and similar strategies of inclusion” (p. 12). Wilson (2001) suggests offering “extended opportunities for collaboration … user-friendly communication tools … [and] tools for
43
organizing, evaluating, and publishing knowledge, available to all group members with expectations for use” (p. 4). Although we have not been able to locate many empirical studies about building a sense of community at the program level, we can learn from studies aimed at investigating and creating a sense of community at the course level. For example, Rovai (2002c) conducted a study of 27 online courses examining whether sense of community was related to perceived cognitive learning and persistence in online courses. He found that sense of community has an impact on both dropout rate and perceived cognitive learning, which are important factors in program-level success. Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap (2003) conducted a case study at a university about the impact of learner support services for online students. Although the scaffolding described in their study focuses on building course-level sense of community, similar scaffolds might be useful at a program level. 2. Purpose of the study This preliminary case study will examine the impacts of a program-wide event on the sense of community in a distance program. The departmental conference studied was originally intended to help students gain “experience writing and sharing their ideas with each other” (E. Boling, personal communication, March 27, 2007). However, in the 7 years of its existence, the annual conference has taken on an additional role in building a sense of an academic and professional community among the traditional residential students and faculty in the department. This study describes the impact of an attempt to extend this communitybuilding role to the Distance Masters and Distance Certificate students, who attend all online courses and, for the most part, do not live in close proximity to the campus. This study will explore whether these students feel a need for such community-building experiences, what they gained from this particular experience, and what can be learned from what went well and what could have been done better in the organization of the conference. The research questions addressed in this study are “How does a departmental conference effect distance education students' perceptions of their own role in the program-level community ?” and “What factors influence distance education students' abilities to participate meaningfully in a departmental conference?” 3. Materials and methods Because this was intended to be an exploratory study of the impact of this event on a specific group of students, a case-study design was used to provide a rich preliminary sketch of students' responses to their experiences. 3.1. Context The conference lasted 2 days. The conference organization offered two attendance options: the traditional in-person attendance and remote attendance via Macromedia Breeze© teleconferencing software (referred to as Breeze). Approximately 125 residential students, distance students, faculty and
44
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
out-of-town visitors attended the majority of conference events on campus within the School of Education building. Approximately 25 distance students and alumni registered to attend one or more remote sessions. Approximately 40 sessions were presented by students, faculty, and alumni. Each session included a volunteer called a “Breeze Host” whose responsibilities included starting and monitoring the Breeze software, and serving as a liaison among the presenter, the in-person audience, and the remote audience. Additional social events like an evening reception, a campus tour, and a job fair were available to in-person attendees. Distance students were given the option participate to a limited degree in networking activities by sending in a resume for the job fair, and attending an online open-house during the conference reception. 3.2. Participants The department's distance education students were the focus of this study. Approximately 101 students were enrolled in the Distance Masters and Distance Certificate programs at the time of the study. Of these, 29 (29%) responded to a post-conference survey, including 10 (34% of respondents) who attended the conference and 19 (66%) who did not attend the conference. Three (10%) indicated they were members of the conference planning committee, four (14%) were members of a subcommittee, and three (10%) participated at the conference. Of the thirteen post-conference survey participants who indicated that they would be willing to be interviewed in the survey, seven agreed to participate in follow-up interviews when contacted by the researchers. Of these, three attended the conference in person, two remotely, and two did not attend. Four of the attendees were members of the conference fund-raising and planning committees. Three presented at the conference (two in person and one remotely). Those who attended in person all volunteered on the day of the conference. 3.3. Data sources Four data sources were used in this study: observations made during the conference, session surveys provided to participants during the conference, a post-conference survey of distance education students, and post-conference interviews. 3.3.1. Observations Observations were performed on two in-person sessions and six recorded sessions. For the in-person observations, the observer noted technical problems and the interactions among the Breeze Host, the presenter, and the in-person audience. For the recorded sessions, the observers noted technical problems and the interactions between the remote audience and the Breeze Host. 3.3.2. Session surveys The session surveys are intended to provide feedback to presenters and conference organizers. Attendees could also indicate permission to use the surveys as part of this research study. For this study, two closed-ended questions (8. “I am satisfied with the use of teleconferencing software in the
session”, and 9. “I enjoyed participating in a session with both remote and local audiences”) and one open-ended question (10. “Other comments regarding the presentation”) were analyzed. These results were used to inform the interview questions and to help identify technical or other issues. 3.3.3. Post-conference survey On the web-based post-conference survey, students who attended the conference answered 3 open-ended questions regarding the impact of the conference on individuals' goals, their feeling of connection with the community, and ways to improve the conference. Students who did not attend the conference answered one closed-ended question indicating why they did not attend. Two demographic questions were used to gain understanding about the participants' background and level of participation in the conference. Survey questions can be seen in Table 1. 3.3.4. Interviews Semi-structured interviews were performed over the phone. Interview questions related to students' participation in the conference and how they felt this impacted their overall experience with the program. Questions were modified slightly based on each participant's experiences with the conference and roles they played preceding and during the conference. For those who participated in the conference, guiding questions for the interview included: • Tell us what you would like us to know about your experience with the conference. • What part of your involvement in the conference was most important to you? Why? • What conference sessions/activities did you attend? Which did you like best and why? • How did you feel about the use of technology in the conference sessions? • Did you notice a difference between how technology was used in different sessions? What techniques did you like best and why? • Do you have suggestions for improving the use of technology in the conference? For those study participants who did not participate in the conference, guiding questions included: • Tell us what you know about the conference. • Tell us any feelings about the conference you might want to share. • Was there a particular reason you did not attend the conference? • Would you consider attending next year? Why or why not? 3.4. Data collection process 3.4.1. Observations During the conference, one researcher performed observations of two sessions, a keynote with 79 attendees and an interactive roundtable session with 36 attendees. Observations
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52 Table 1 Post-conference survey questions Question
Response options
What was your level of participation in the IU IST Conference?
Did not participate in the conference Was a member of the planning committee Was a member of a sub-committee Submitted an application to present Presented at the conference Participated in the peer-review process by reviewing presentation applications Attended one or more conference sessions Attended the keynote speaker presentation Attended conference open-house Viewed recorded sessions at a later date Attended conference lunch Attended mini-job-fair Sent resume for mini-job-fair Manned a booth at mini-job-fair Attended conference reception Other (please specify) Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Somewhat un-likely Un-likely Very un-likely
How likely are you to attend the conference next year?
[Attendees only] Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: • Attending/participating in the conference helped me to meet my own professional goals. • Attending/participating in the conference helped me meet my own academic goals. • Attending/participating in the conference caused me to feel more connected to the IU IST community.
Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Sessions were multicast to the remote audience via Breeze, which allowed remote participants to attend presentations. The recordings of the sessions were later observed by the researchers. The researchers noted when participants joined and dropped out of sessions, when technical issues occurred and the participants' and Breeze Hosts' responses to technical issues, and interactions among the participants, Breeze Host, and presenter. No personally identifying information was recorded within the observations. 3.4.2. Session survey In-person conference attendees were given a paper-based copy of the session survey at the end of each session. These surveys were placed in a drop-box after being completed by the participants. Remote attendees were given a URL by the Breeze host at the end of each session. No personally identifying information was included on the surveys. Ninety-eight surveys were collected from in-person attendees and 17 were collected from remote attendees across 39 sessions. 3.4.3. Post-conference survey For the post-conference survey, an email was sent to all members of the Distance Masters and Distance Certificate programs, inviting them to participate in an online survey. Two follow-up reminder emails were sent. The survey was hosted on the SurveyMonkey survey management system. The survey was designed to take 15–20 min. Students were asked to provide their email address if they were willing to participate in follow-up interviews. 3.4.4. Interviews Seven of the thirteen students who were sent invitation emails agreed to participate in interviews. Two interviewers followed a semi-structured interview protocol. Questions were varied slightly based on the students' experiences (whether or not they attended the conference, whether they attended remotely or in person, and what their volunteer role was). 3.5. Data analysis process
Please explain your answers. What three things did you like most about the conference? What three things could be improved in the conference to better suit your needs? [Non-attendees only] Why did you not attend the IU IST conference in March, 2007? (Please select all that apply)
45
Not aware of the conference Could not attend because of work obligations Could not attend because of other obligations Not interested in the conference Other (please specify)
focused on technical issues and their impact on the presenter and the in-person audience and interactions between the remote audience, presenter(s), and Breeze Host. No identifying information was recorded within the observations.
The constant comparative method was used to contrast and combine data from the three rich data sources (surveys, observations, and interviews) into a meaningful construction. Lincoln and Guba (1984) define the constant comparative method as used in naturalist inquiry as consisting of four steps: 1. Compare incidences applicable to each category and define properties of each category. 2. Integrate categories based on their properties. 3. Delimit the construction by limiting the scope of possible categories, thereby reducing the number of categories. 4. Write the construction. We first compared observational data from the in-person and remote sessions in order to gain an understanding of how each audience reacted to technical issues and presentation
46
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
techniques. Data from the session surveys were reviewed for interesting outliers and for mentions of technical issues or other issues at the conference organizational level which impacted the participants' experience of individual sessions. We sorted and noted common categories from these sources and used their findings to inform the interview questions. Data from the post-survey questions was also used to inform the interview questions and to refine interview questions for each interviewee. The researchers used the constant comparative method to analyze the data obtained from the three open-ended postsurvey questions as well as the interview transcripts. Long answers were unitized by determining what the smallest meaningful units of data were (Lincoln and Guba, 1984). Within each question, both researchers used margin notes while searching for emerging categories, and then we sorted and recorded the provisional categories together. Once each transcript and all survey questions had been coded had been coded, the codes were recorded and combined into provisional categories, and we re-printed the transcripts and re-coded all transcripts according to the provisional categories. We then compared the emerging categories across all data sources, using a card-sort technique recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1984). Each card was coded with the data-source, participant identification code, and question number. The cards were then re-sorted into new provisional categories, and the cards were labeled with the categories. The researchers then created properties which characterized each category and resorted the categories based upon those properties. All categories were compared for overlap, and some categories were combined or individual cards were moved to other categories based upon the propositional rules for inclusion in each category. Finally, we looked for relationships between the categories, and three overarching categories or dimensions emerged. All groups were reviewed one more time, and categories or individual items which did not fit within these dimensions were discarded. The three dimensions and the subcategories belonging to each are discussed in the findings section. 3.6. Limitations Nineteen (66%) of those surveyed did not attend the conference. However, four out of seven participants interviewed were among the most active of the conference volunteers, and only two of those interviewed were non-attendees. It is likely that students who were motivated to participate in the conference were also more motivated to volunteer their time to participate in an interview. This study was conducted in an Instructional Systems Technology department with a relatively small residential and distance education population at Indiana University. The findings may not necessarily transfer to other departments, other universities, or other types of events. However, lessons learned in this exploratory case study may be valuable to those interested in developing or evaluating similar events for departments with both residential and distance students.
4. Findings Based on our analysis of the data, three main dimensions emerged. These included Distance Education Student Backgrounds, Impacts on Sense of Community, and Considerations for Blended Conferences. 4.1. Distance education student backgrounds This dimension addresses the backgrounds of the students in the distance education program and its impact on their perception of the need for this type of event. The categories included in this dimension are backgrounds and goals and attendance constraints. 4.1.1. Backgrounds and goals Interviews indicated that students felt that their peers had a variety of backgrounds and experiences, leading them to have very different feelings about the conference. Some students had a strong desire to connect outside of the classroom, while others did not. The students who volunteered valued their experience but recognized that their peers might not have the time or interest to make the same commitment, because of family and work obligations. One student noted “it is almost as if there are a lot of my peers who don't share my beliefs about involvement in the greater ...department—they just want to take their classes and move on, and they just don't want to be involved in the greater ... community.” A student who did not attend indicated that he is only interested in completing his masters one class at a time and that “…[is] exactly what I need. The other parts, community [etc.]... I'm an old fart, that is just not what I need in my life.” Students had a variety of constraints which made attendance difficult. When asked why they were not able to attend the conference, twelve of the 16 non–attendees who took part in the post–conference survey indicated that work obligations kept them from attending, while seven indicated that other obligations kept them from attending. Individual students indicated that they had not heard of the conference, were not interested in attending, or could not attend because of course work. Two students indicated that they had planned to attend but were unable to due to technical problems at their end. The students interviewed in this study showed a range of backgrounds which influenced their own program goals and their desires to take part in the conference. All but one of the seven students were working fulltime at the time of the conference, and several interviewees made references to children or family during the interviews, indicating that family obligations constrained their ability to take part in activities relating to the program. Of those who attended physically, one was from the same state as the department while the other two traveled from other parts of the country to come to the conference. The remote participants interviewed both resided in the same state as the conference, indicating that physical distance was not the deciding factor in attending the conference for these students. Four of the interviewees volunteered prior to the conference, and the three who were physically present all volunteered on the day of the conference. Of those who volunteered, two mentioned
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
that involvement in this type of activity took the place of professional organization involvement for them, while another indicated that it was a way to feel more like a residential student. All four indicated that personal contact with peers and other members of the department was something they had felt was lacking in their distance education experience up till this point and mentioned growing friendships as a benefit of their participation. One non-volunteer who attended remotely presented at the conference. She indicated that her own anxiety about her presentation and possible technical issues, together with work constraints on the day of the conference, made it harder for her to actively attend conference activities or gain a benefit from interacting with other conference attendees. Of the two interviewees who did not attend the conference, one said that he did not know about the conference until the week of the event and had work constraints which made it impossible to attend, but might consider attending in future years. He indicated that the main benefits he would hope for from the conference were professional networking and an opportunity to learn more from faculty members and peer presentations. The other non-attendee (a faculty member of another department at the same campus) indicated that he had his own social and professional communities and had no interest in further involvement with peers or others in the department. 4.2. Impacts on sense of community The Impacts on Sense of Community dimension addresses how this type of community can help Distance Education students feel more connected to the community and individuals within the community. Previous literature has indicated that sense of community may have a positive impact on student retention. Our own findings seem to indicate that for our participants, sense of community plays a role in overall satisfaction with the degree program. Categories within this dimension include connection with the community, sense of belonging, connection with individuals in the community, and volunteering. 4.2.1. Connection with the community Students who attended the conference indicated that interacting with the community was very important to them. When discussing this, the participants differentiated the distance education community from the overall department community. Several of the students interviewed indicated that the conference was a way to participate meaningfully in the community and make personal connections. Joy said that that this was the chance she had been waiting for to “immerse” herself in the department. When asked about ways interactions within the departmental community could be improved, Judy said, “I think this conference goes a long way towards that.” Karol said that she felt that the keynote address and subsequent discussions in the department list–serve brought everyone together; indicating that the community feeling continued after the conference was over. 4.2.2. Sense of belonging The conference also seemed to have an impact on student's sense of belonging. They appreciated the effort made by the
47
department to make them feel like they were a part of the department and saw their own involvement as crucial to their feeling of inclusion in the event and the department. For example, Joy said that an important aspect of her own contributions was “not just to feel a part of it, but also to contribute to it as part of the community.” Unfortunately, she noted that after she left the community after the conference, she felt disconnected once more, indicating that she did not believe that the connection she felt could be maintained without being physically present in the department. 4.2.3. Connection with individuals in the community Students also saw the conference as a good way to connect to individuals within the community. Students encouraged one another to come to the conference, so they could meet more of their online friends in person. Many of the student respondents to the post-conference survey indicated that meeting students they had been in class with was an important benefit of the conference. Participants interviewed stressed the importance of meeting others face to face, especially faculty. Prior to the conference, they felt that faculty members would not have known them if they passed on the street. Students also indicated that they appreciated the opportunity to learn more about student and faculty research and requested that more faculty members present their research in future years. Catherine, who attended at a distance, especially appreciated the interactive sessions on the second day, explaining that the experience of interacting in real time with faculty was exciting and that “it is one thing to put something in writing, but it is another to be able to ask questions and hear what they have to say in person.” 4.2.4. Volunteering Volunteering played a different role for each of the four interviewees who were involved in planning and organizing the conference. Students had various reasons for volunteering. Joy, who organized the conference budget, said that her background allowed her to give valuable service to the community. Karol, who interacted with many other student groups while organizing the basket raffle, indicated that her involvement in the conference took the place of the professional organizations she used to attend as part of her former career in another field. She also indicated that her main reason for volunteering is that she felt it was “an important thing to do.” Judy, who had to leave early on the first day to prepare for the evening reception, mentioned that “every time you have a job as you volunteer, it enriches your experience, both positively and negatively.” She indicated that although she missed some conference sessions which may have been academically valuable to her, she was rewarded by getting to know people before and during the conference, “and it made it a much richer experience.” Volunteering seems to have been a meaningful experience to the students. Students interviewed indicated that they enjoyed meeting other members of the planning committee and subcommittees in person and really felt part of the committees. One student surveyed mentioned that an important part of the conference was that he or she “was able to work with others and
48
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
connect on a level other than classmate.” Another survey respondent stated “I think I would have felt more connected if I had served on the planning committee.” Joy mentioned that being part of organizing the conference allowed her to “peek behind the curtain [and see] what goes into it … all the moving parts, all the people who attended from Indiana and other places.” Catherine said that “for the little part I played I could feel proud of the conference.” 4.3. Factors that support the development of blended conferences The Factors that Support the Development of Blended Conferences dimension describes the lessons learned from this conference. The categories included in this dimension are Expectations for Continued Involvement, Flexibility for Virtual Attendance, Technology used during the Conference, Presentation Topics and Sessions, Positive Aspects of the Conference Organization, Conference Organization Issues, and Students' Suggestions for Improvement of the Conference. 4.3.1. Expectations for continued involvement The Expectations for Continued Involvement category indicates the importance of including distance students in the conference each year, which will allow ongoing involvement in the department. Students seemed to associate continued involvement in the conference with being more connected to the department itself. The interview participants who attended the conference this year all expressed a desire to continue to participate in activities like the blended conference. They also indicated an expectation for this conference to continue happening at least on an annual basis. Not only did students express an interest in attending the conference next year, but some expressed regret that they had not been involved in previous years. Fourteen out of twenty–five survey respondents indicated that they plan to attend the conference next year, and all five interviewees who attended this year expressed a desire to attend the conference next year. Of the two who did not attend, one indicated that he may attend next year, if the event was better publicized, especially by faculty members. 4.3.2. Flexibility for virtual attendance The Flexibility for Virtual Attendance category addresses the participants' appreciation of the department's effort to include students who could not physically attend the conference. Having real-time interactions with session presenters and in person attendees seemed to be important to the participants. Students also appreciated having the opportunity to present remotely. The teleconferencing software allowed remote attendees to “jump in and out” of sessions during their work day, and the recordings allowed them to view sessions they could not attend because of scheduling issues. However, one non-attendee indicated that if he attended the following year, it would be in person. This would allow him to focus on participating in the conference, rather than being distracted by work issues. All interviewees indicated that they appreciated the availability of options to attend both virtually and in-person.
4.3.3. Technology used during the conference The Technology category includes ways that the technology impacted the conference and is broken into three sub-categories: Issues with Presenter Interactions with Technology, Session Host Interactions with Technology, and Student Attitudes about Technology Used. 4.3.3.1. Issues with presenter interactions with technology. During observations, we noticed that the presenter's interaction with Breeze and the types of technology they used in their presentations affected the activity levels of the remote audience. During her interview, Catherine noted that the presenter's familiarity with Breeze and whether or not they were addressing her directly affected how much she felt a part of the session. She said, I will tell you that if the workshop was being conducted with an overhead or whatever else they were using in the room and the presenter was talking with the participants in the room, I didn't feel as included—I felt like a lurker, watching. Although if I asked a question, the host would ask it for us, but it still felt a little different than if the presenter was reading the comments as they came up in Breeze. One felt like I was a looker-on, the other like I was a part of it. Some believed that the quality of the audio was directly impacted by the speaker's movements in the room. 4.3.3.2. Session hosts' interactions with presenters. Breeze Hosts' interactions with the presenters, the in-person audience, and the remote audience played a vital role in making it possible for the remote audience to participate in the session. Catherine said that the Breeze host was very helpful in typing in the missed parts of the presenter's speech when the audio in Breeze would cut out. During observations, we noticed that the Breeze host's interactions had an impact on the success of the session, especially from the remote participants' point of view. For example, there were some problems with the speaker's microphone in the beginning of the keynote. In the in-person observations, it was noted that the Breeze host alerted the inperson audience and the speaker of the audio problems that the remote audience was having. During the observations of the same session in the Breeze recordings, we noted that the Breeze host informed the remote audience of the reasons for the audio problems and what was being done to fix the problem. However, in other sessions the technical problems were never resolved and neither group was fully aware of what was occurring. For example, in one session that also experienced audio problems, the Breeze host only mentioned once to the in-person audience that there were some audio issues for the remote audience. A member of the remote audience offered a correct diagnosis for the audio problem to the Breeze host, but these suggestions were never passed on to the people who were working to fix the problem. In these situations, remote participants frequently dropped in and out of the session. Despite technical problems during some sessions, the participants who presented at the conference mentioned how helpful the Breeze hosts were during their own
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
presentations in helping them incorporate the remote audience into discussions. 4.3.3.3. Student attitudes about technology used. The students' attitudes about the Breeze technology were primarily positive. They mentioned liking Breeze and enjoying the use of it despite the audio problems. Judy mentioned that “the technology went pretty smoothly considering how these things go.” Several participants suggested strategies for overcoming audio problems that occurred during some of the sessions. 4.3.4. Presentation topics and sessions The presentation topics and sessions category describes the participants' response to the sessions at the conference. Students indicated they enjoyed the variety and quality of the sessions at the conference. Students indicated that the topics were relevant and interesting and made their effort to participate in the conference worthwhile. Some even named the variety of topics as their favorite thing about the conference. The two special interactive workshops on the second day were most frequently referred to as favorite sessions. The social events were also mentioned by the participants who attended in person. They enjoyed having the “informal opportunity to meet everyone.” The participants also highlighted their interest in the job fair and the professional networking opportunities it provided for them. 4.3.5. Positive aspects of the conference organization The positive aspects of the conference organization category include the things the participants identified that they thought went well with the conference. These included the overall organization of the conference, the ease of finding the conference, the website's organization and structure, the helpfulness of the Breeze hosts, and the 2-day format of the conference. 4.3.6. Conference organization issues The conference organization issues category includes areas identified by the participants that need some improvement. Most of the issues brought up by the participants had to do with the audio problems experienced in some of the sessions. Participants were concerned that the technical issues impacted the schedule on the day of the conference and that the session times were not long enough to allow for setup of the technology before each session began. They also said the schedule of presentations and abstracts should have been available sooner to allow for time to arrange their work schedules to attend the sessions they were interested in. Other issues mentioned by participants who attend in person included information about room locations and parking fees. 4.3.7. Student's suggestions for improvement of the conference The participants had many suggestions for improving the conference. These included specific alternatives to fixing the technical problems experienced during some sessions, requests for specific practical workshops, informational emails for registered attendees a few days before the conference, and more opportunities to get to know the faculty. They also mentioned
49
wanting an opportunity to meet the adjunct faculty who teach the majority of their courses. Finally, both the survey participants and the interview participants expressed a desire for a special meeting time and place for the distance education students to get to meet one another. 5. Discussion 5.1. Distant education student backgrounds Different backgrounds and goals seem to have influenced our participants to have different levels of interest in the conference activities. Their work and family obligations also made it hard for many students to attend or to spend the time our volunteers put into this conference event. Therefore, attendance at any similar events should not be mandatory. Optional events allow students to attend and reap the benefits without punishing those who do not wish to or cannot physically attend. The remote option also allowed students to attend who otherwise would not be able to. Students anticipate using recorded sessions at their leisure if they could not attend because of work obligations. This offers the additional benefit of allowing students to view sessions which were offered simultaneously. Finally, one student recommended that these types of activities be offered for course credit or be structured so that they could be used as professional development opportunities. Although students viewed the social aspects of the event as one of their primary reasons for attending, this would make it possible for them to spend the time and money necessary to attend physically in the future. 5.2. Impacts on sense of community Rovai (2002a) has defined four dimensions of classroom community within distance education: spirit, trust, interaction, and commonality of expectations and goals. We suggest that program-level sense of community may have similar features. We have expanded Rovai's definitions to meet our understanding of the program-level sense of community as it emerged from this study. Rovai defines spirit as a feeling of belonging in the community, a “… recognition of membership in a community and the feelings of friendship, cohesion, and bonding that develop among learners as they enjoy one another and look forward to time spent together” (p. 4). At a program level, this corresponds partially with our Connection with the Community, Sense of Belonging, and Connection to Individuals categories. Students who participated indicated that the conference helped them feel they were participating meaningfully in the community, and the ability to meet their fellow students in person strengthened friendships they had been building online. Those who volunteered continued to build on the friendships they had formed within their committees. In Rovai's framework, trust is “the feeling that community members can be trusted and represents a willingness to rely on other members of the community in whom one has confidence” (p. 5). Although the 2-day conference event was probably not
50
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
sufficient to build a feeling of trust in most attendees, the volunteers seemed to indicate a growing sense of mutual dependence within their committee. They also appeared to have a growing feeling that they could be trusted by the conference organizers, making them feel a sense of ownership in the event. For instance, during her interview, Joy occasionally included herself when referring to the organization of the conference. For example, when discussion technical issues, she said “…but if we could improve the recording and get it back up pretty soon afterwards for them to review it…” It was clear that Joy, who indicated that she had previously felt disconnected from the community, now felt that she had a leading role in the community—at least for the duration of conference activities. Rovai classifies interactions into two categories: task-driven or socio-emotional interactions. Within his course-level framework, task-driven interactions refer to “the completion of assigned tasks” (p. 5), where tasks are usually created by instructors. Socio-emotional interactions refer to “relationships among learners”, which are primarily self-generated. At a program level in current distance education programs, most non-course-related interactions are sought out by the distance students. Interactions with faculty members are especially important to many of the distance students we surveyed and interviewed. However, there are not many opportunities for them to interact with faculty outside of courses. Students indicated that the conference offered them an opportunity to meet face to face with the fulltime faculty, as well as their peers. This was very important to the students who indicated they were interested in making a connection with the community. Although meeting in person was very important, Catherine indicated that she felt some connection with faculty members during the interactive sessions even while attending remotely, making this a valuable experience for her at a socio-emotional level. It was not clear whether this was because the interaction was in real-time, because she could hear the faculty members' voices, or because the activity involved a highly interactive open-ended discussion. Rovai's final dimension is commonality of expectations and goals. In his framework, this primarily refers to learning goals at a course level. However, at a program-level student expectations may include a broader definition of learning, as well as a stronger emphasis on social interactions. Students interviewed expressed interest in faculty and student research and in joining and participating in professional organizations. This indicates that students are thinking about their own learning goals in the context of becoming active members of a field of practice. For example, Karol said that she felt it was important to support professional organizations and “[give] back to the profession.” Students also indicated that they hoped to feel a sense of community within the department. For example, during her interview Joy frequently referred to the experiences she believed residential students have on a daily basis that are not usually available to her as a distance student. However, all of the students interviewed indicated that they recognized that not everyone in the program has the same goals making it difficult to feel a connection across the entire Distance Education community. Joy spoke about a group in the distance education
program that doesn't share her beliefs about being involved in the department. She said “I don't feel connected to them, and they don't want to be part of the community...then there are distance students who want to be part of the community, and I feel connected to those.” 5.3. Factors for development of blended conferences Although the findings we described in this dimension were specific to the conference event, many of the considerations for organizing the conference might be useful in planning similar program-level events to support both distance education and residential students. Students' expectations to continue being involved indicate their belief that these types of activities should be recurring. The participants who attended the conference indicated that continued involvement in this type of activity would help them feel more connected to the department, enrich their academic experience, and build professional networks. Students responded to topics and sessions they particularly enjoyed. The two sessions on day two seemed to be especially popular, probably because these were the most interactive sessions and because they allowed students to make a connection with the residential faculty members leading the sessions. Students were also enthusiastic about the job fair, which offered opportunities for professional networking with employers as well as their own peers. Unfortunately, organization issues impacted the way students, especially remote attendees, were able to participate in the conference. Technology was the biggest unresolved organizational issue. Hardware, software, and networking problems made remote participation difficult for some sessions. Insuring stable technology and searching for possible alternatives to remediate technical problems which could not be avoided is crucial in making a blended event a success. During observations of the sessions, we were surprised to find that remote participants found ways to work around technical issues, including filling in the gaps by reading presentation slides or asking for clarification from the Breeze host when they could not hear, and helping one another resolve technical issues. 5.4. Conclusions and suggestions for future research Studying the conference allowed us to gain an understanding of the needs and desires of students in one particular graduate level distance education program and highlighted the impact of providing activities to support a program-level sense of community for participating students. In this study we identified three dimensions which characterized the impact of the conference and its organization on distance education students. The Distance Education Student Backgrounds dimension helped us gain a deeper understanding of the differences among the distance education study body and the need to consider those differences when planning program-level activities. The Impact on Sense of Community dimension was compared to Rovai's four dimensions of classroom community within distance education. This allowed us to modify his four dimensions to describe student perceptions of their role in this
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
program-level activity. The Considerations for Blended Conferences dimension summarizes our findings about the strengths and weaknesses of our own conference and the distance education students' reactions to the organization of the conference this year. It is hoped that the categories which emerged in this dimension may be useful in evaluating similar events in other contexts. These areas may also be a good starting point for developing studies of community-building programlevel events in the future. This exploratory case study explored one possible way to provide opportunities for meaningful interactions between students, faculty, alumni, and others in the community. Among those distance education students who participated in the conference, those who volunteered seemed to truly feel an increased sense of connection to the greater community. Other participants indicated that they appreciated the opportunity to interact with fellow students and faculty, but did not appear to have felt that merely attending the conference truly made them part of the community. Other types of activities may prove to better suit the needs of some groups of distance education students. Activities which allow students to interact for more extended periods of time or combinations of activities which give students multiple opportunities to interact with one another and others in the community may be necessary to foster a program-level sense of community. Future studies could examine a variety of program-level resources and activities to determine their value in supporting the development of a sense of community within distance education programs. Program-level sense of community within distance education programs appears to play an important role in the academic lives of at least some portion of the distance education population, and may also have an impact on important issues such as student retention and academic success (Dawson, 2006; Shea et al., 2006). However, the literature does not provide many details on how to promote sense of community at a program level. Future studies are needed to determine whether a sense of community impacts student success, as well as developing tools or constructs to measure a sense of community. For example, a subsequent study on the same group of students investigates their current program-level sense of community (using a modified version of Rovai's Classroom Community Scale) and other impacts on their sense of community (Exter, Korkmaz, Harlin & Bichelmeyer, 2008). Future studies of this type of event may use similar measures to determine whether there is a difference in the perceived sense of community in a group of students before and after such an event or a series of events. Finally, our findings suggest the importance of understanding the backgrounds and goals of the students in distance education programs and how those affect their needs and desires for community-building activities in their academic programs. All students, including those who participated actively as volunteers, suggested that these types of activities not be made mandatory, as work and family constraints make it difficult for them to attend these types of events either remotely or in person. One interviewee and a number of survey participants indicated that they had no interest whatsoever in participating in activities
51
not directly related to their course-work, although they indicated a high level of satisfaction with the courses offered by the program. Our tentative conclusion is that a sense of community is not equally important to all students, and that events like the conference discussed here may not be attractive or valuable to all students. Future studies could explore whether students who are initially adverse to program-level activities would still benefit from mandatory activities. In developing the conference, we found that it was possible to offer students a range of participation levels, including attending, presenting, and volunteering in various ways. This allowed students to pick a level of participation and interaction which met their own goals and constraints. This may be an alternative to fully in-person events or to mandatory activities. However, offering this range of activities involved additional effort by the conference organizers. Future research into these types of activities may allow a deeper insight into the role they play in the development of students within a distance education program, and lead to the formation of best practices for creating program-level supports to mirror and augment the work that has already been done to a large extent at the course-level.
References Berge, Z., & Huang, Y. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: A holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-Learning. DEOSNEWS, 13(5). Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2001a). Best practices for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from www.ncahlc.org/download/Best_Pract_DEd.pdf Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2001b). Statement of Commitment by the Regional Accrediting Commissions for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from www.ncahlc.org/download/CRAC_Statement_DEd.pdf Dawson, S. (2006). A study of the relationship between student communication interaction and sense of community. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 153−162. Exter, M., Korkmaz, N., Harlin, N., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2008). Distance Education Students' Responses to Sense of Community within a Fully Online Graduate Program. Paper to be presented at the AERA, 2008. Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 355–396) (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kuh, G. D. (2006). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Indiana Postsecondary Research and Planning Retrieved October 8, 2007, from nsse.iub.edu/ 2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_Conceptual_Framework.pd Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1984). Processing the naturalistically obtained data. In Naturalistic Inquiry (pp. 332−356). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success. Raven, A. (2000). Online learning communities: If you build them, will they stay? Retrieved December 5, 2006, from itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/ paper46/paper46.htm Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1. Rovai, A. P. (2002). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1−16. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319−332.
52
M. Exter et al. / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 42–52
Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175−190. The Faculty Initiative. (1998). Innovations in distance education: An emerging set of guiding principles and practices for the design and development of distance education. Retrieved August 1, 2007, 2007, from www.worldcampus.psu.edu/ ide/docs/guiding_principles.pdf
Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Wilson, B. G. (2001, 11/30/2006). Sense of community as a valued outcome for electronic courses, cohorts, and programs. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/SenseOfCommunity.html
