Developing and Delivering an Online Writing Class at ASU:

A Report on the Pilot Section of ENG 301

Susan Heck and Viktorija Todorovska

Introduction

In order to remain competitive with other institutions of higher education and adequately serve an increasingly diverse student population, Arizona State University has been encouraging instructors to develop courses using distance learning technology. Recently the World Wide Web has become an increasingly popular delivery system for such courses, and many departments have partnered with the College of Extended Education to offer web-based instruction. While the Department of English has been a leader in incorporating technology in the classroom, it had offered no completely online classes until the summer of 1999. Since distance education classes have the potential to reach an audience that is not served by a traditional face-to-face format, we proposed to offer a pilot distance education section of ENG 301, Writing for the Professions. In this report, we describe and assess our experience and offer recommendations regarding the future use of distance learning technology for writing classes at ASU.

Why Offer an Online Class?: Assessing Why, When and Where to Use Distance Learning Technology

Distance education does not replace traditional, face-to-face instruction. There is a place, a purpose, and an audience for both styles of teaching in higher education. Successful distance education classes target specific audiences that are not served by 'traditional' face-to-face classes. Additionally, the nature of an online course requires that instructors reassess their course objectives and assignments. It is essential that instructors and administrators carefully consider the reason for offering a class in an online format and what audience the course will serve.

We were interested in piloting a web-based writing course because of our research on the use of technology in writing instruction and our involvement in the development of the Computers and Writing program at ASU. When considering which writing class to teach in a distance learning format and what audience would best be served by an online class, we immediately excluded first-year writing classes since face-to-face interaction with the instructor and the other students in the class is crucial for retention efforts and for the success of many students taking those classes. We also thought that an audience of first-year students might not be the best choice for a pilot section of a course using distance learning technology. By contrast, ENG 301 seemed particularly amenable to a distance learning format since students in upper-division classes have more experience with college classes and are more familiar with the university system. Also, the class explores writing practices in the students' future professions, and those practices increasingly incorporate technology. Since college graduates are often required to read and compose online -- both individually and

1

collaboratively -- we wanted to create an environment in which they could discuss these processes while at the same time gaining practice with them. We wanted to provide students with an opportunity to write some of the types of documents they will be required to compose in their jobs (such as memos, letters of application, resumes, proposals, etc.), asking them to create those documents in an online format. We hoped not only that this class would provide students with an opportunity to practice reading and writing online, but that the format of the class would also enable students to take the class who for a variety of reasons would not be able to in a traditional face-to-face format.

Indeed, the class did attract some students who otherwise would not have been able to take ENG 301 during the summer and might not have graduated in the desired timeframe for that reason. Several of our students took the class from different states and many others did most of their coursework at night or early in the morning because of their work schedules. In fact, we found by tracking access to our website that students were visiting the class website throughout the twenty-four hour day to work on assignments.

We were concerned that the class would not be accessible to students who have difficulties with computer access or do not feel comfortable working with computers, however, because it requires some prior experience with computers and Internet access. We specified in the class description that only basic knowledge of word processing, e-mail, and using the Internet was required for the course. Although it is impossible to assess whether potential students chose not to take the class because Internet access and ready access to a computer were requirements, several students took the class with very little knowledge of computers beyond simple word processing. In order to accommodate these students, we wrote detailed descriptions of how to use the various technologies we were incorporating into the class (designing basic websites, uploading files, posting messages to a discussion board), and we included information about how to download the software needed for the course (students needed a web browser if they did not already have one). We were happy to see that our course was able to accommodate students with varying degrees of prior experience with computers, but we were acutely aware of the fact that all of the students in our class had a computer and access to the Internet at home. We realize that this requirement must have excluded some potential students and that access to technology is still a crucial issue when considering the offering of online classes.

As a result of our experience, we developed a series of questions that instructors and administrators should consider to help faculty critically assess offering online classes. The questions ask instructors and administrators to consider the purpose and audience of the potential online class and question the appropriateness of a distance format, based on scholarship in the field of distance education:

• What is the purpose of the class?
• Does presenting this class in a distance education format change the course's objectives?
• Who is the audience for the class?

2

• Does presenting this class in a distance education format exclude some students who might otherwise take the class? Does it include some students who might otherwise not take the class?
• What opportunities does distance education offer for this course that a more 'traditional' format does not? · How will the audience for this class benefit from a distance education format?
• How would a distance education version of this class fit in with the mission and goals of the program/department/university?

Before instructors begin developing and teaching online classes, it is imperative that they assess why the course should be offered in an online format and who the audience will be.

Developing and Teaching an Online Class at ASU: What Worked and What Didn't

Once the decision has been made to develop an online version of a class, the instructor must critically consider how to design the class based on the purpose and audience of the course. Teaching an online course requires a large amount of front-end work before the semester begins; the instructor must develop the website and make the course materials available to students from the beginning.

Depending on the pace of the course, adjustments can be made throughout the course, but basic course information must be available to students from the beginning. Once we had determined which class we wanted to offer in an online format and what the requirements of the class would be, we proposed the course to Duane Roen, the Director of Composition, and Nancy Gutierrez, the Chair of the Department of English, and the class was approved. The next step was to decide what technology we were going to use. We were both familiar with Blackboard CourseInfo, a web-based instruction software package supported by both Instruction Support and the College of Extended Education at ASU, and we decided to use it since it is relatively user-friendly for both the instructor and the students and only requires Internet access and an Internet browser. In addition, Blackboard CourseInfo is already widely used at ASU and we were hoping that some of the students taking the class might be familiar with it already or that they might be able to use it in future classes.

Myrna Morgan coordinated the offering of the class between the English Department and the College of Extended Education. Because the class was not proposed and approved until after the scheduling deadline, the class was not listed in the summer bulletin, but it was listed on the website of the College of Extended Education together with other online classes offered at ASU. We also advertised the class by designing a flyer with a brief description of the class, the line number, and contact information and posted it in prominent places in the Language and Literature building and distributed it to teachers teaching ENG 102 in computer classrooms during the spring 1999 semester. In addition, we distributed copies of the flyer to faculty in the English Department so that they would be informed about the course. The flyers raised quite a bit of interest

3

on the part of both teachers and students, and in the next couple of months we received a number of e-mail messages and phone calls from students who wanted to learn more about the class. We were also approached by a number of our colleagues who expressed interest in the class and informed us that some of their students were interested in taking the class.

Before the end of the spring semester, we meet with a representative from the College of Extended Education who helps develop online classes with instructors. We talked to him about setting up the website for our class and advertising the class. While he was very helpful, we found that developing our course website required quite a bit of prior knowledge and experience with developing simple HTML documents and designing websites. We spent approximately 40 hours on our own designing the site and uploading documents such as the syllabus, assignment schedule, and various writing assignment descriptions for the students. If we had not had prior experience with Blackboard CourseInfo and designing websites, the design of the course would have taken much longer.

In the months to come, we frequently communicated with our contact in the College of Extended Education through e-mail; he provided us with updated student rosters and the e-mail addresses of ASU students registered for the class so we could create a distribution list and contact them. While he was very helpful in trying to contact students, one of the biggest challenges we encountered was the fact that we had no reliable way of reaching all of the students who had registered for the class. While students who had registered through the College of Extended Education's website generally had email accounts with ASU, some students registered through In-Touch and had no ASU email accounts, or the ASU email accounts they had created (and that we had access to) were not the accounts they generally used (nearly half of the students used other accounts through AOL, USWEST, and other providers). Additionally, several of our students were not ASU students during the regular school year, and we had no access to records of theirs in order to contact them. Our concern was that some students might not know how and when to find the class, and that proved to be true. Administratively, the class was listed as meeting on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and toward the end of the first week of class it became obvious that some students thought that was the actual meeting time. Several students contacted us on Thursday evening or Friday morning of the first week and wanted to know what they should do to be ready for class on Saturday. By then we had already dropped students from the class who had not contacted us because their first major assignment was already due. The students were justifiably upset because their schedules had listed the class as a Saturday class. We allowed two students who contacted us on Wednesday to remain in the class after we had made it clear that they would have to make up the work they had missed by the end of the first week, but the other students had to find other classes.

We asked our contact in the College of Extended Education if there is a policy about contacting students to avoid misunderstanding about the class listing, and he suggested that instructors have an initial

4

face-to-face meeting with the students the first day. We felt that would have defeated part of the purpose of offering the course online, however, and it would have put at a disadvantage students who could not make it to the meeting (the very students the course was designed to serve). ASU does not have a reliable system in place for contacting students before the class starts to let them know what to do and where to go to find their online class. While many students found the course, it was either through their own ingenuity or because we were able to find an email address or phone number to contact them. There is not appropriate support at this time for helping students and instructors contact each other during the first few days of classes, especially considering the various ways in which students can register for classes at ASU.

Additionally, we found that increased email contact with students required more time on our part. During the first week of class, some of our students were unsure of how to navigate the class website and we received numerous e-mail messages with questions. Although there were only twenty-one students in the class, we received approximately fifty to seventy-five email messages per day asking general questions about how to navigate the class website and how to post homework responses. Students also had some technical difficulties when trying to send e-mail, use the discussion board, or post assignments on the class website. Usually we would respond to the questions, while at other times students were able to help each other since they were experiencing the same problems. In addition, we were responding to email from students who were confused about the registration process for the class.

The first week of class required more time from both teachers than we had ever spent teaching a class, and we found that we spent inordinate amounts of time responding to email and monitoring the class use of the website. We had scheduled regular office hours in a chat room for students to come and ask questions, but we found that they preferred to talk to us in e-mail at their own convenience. After the first week, we informed the students that we would no longer hold our office hours in the chat since that didn't seem to be very effective, and from that point on we communicated with students in e-mail when they had questions. In order to accommodate as many students as we could as soon as we could, we had scheduled our office hours so that one of us was available in the morning and the other in the afternoon all five days of the week. When we cancelled our office hours in the chat, we still made sure that at least one of us would check e-mail later in the evening and early in the morning. After the first week of classes, the number of e-mail messages became more manageable; however, we both spent more time on a daily basis responding to student questions and teaching the class than either of us would have spent teaching a traditional face-to-face class. Therefore, we do not believe that offering online classes will lead to a reduction of the number of teachers necessary to teach those classes or an increase in the number of students that can be accommodated in one class; on the contrary, if online classes are to provide quality education, they seem to require more time and effort from the teacher per student. In fact, one student suggested in the course evaluation at the end of the class that the size of the class

5

should have been even smaller than it was, and there were two instructors. The workload for one instructor would be much larger than it would be with a traditional class.

Instructors must consider issues of access and technological familiarity on the part of the students and what support the institution offers to teachers planning to teach online classes. Based on the experience of developing and teaching our first online class, we developed a set of questions that instructors can consider when beginning to develop their online courses:

• How do you go about offering a distance education class at your institution? Who do you talk to?
• What resources are there for course development?
• What technologies are available for a distance learning class and which ones should you use?
• How do you design the class using distance learning technology so that it meets the course objectives?
• How much prior knowledge of computers and distance education can you assume on the part of the audience?

Assessing the Effectiveness of an Online Class: Where Do We Go from Here?

In order to develop a useful professional dialogue about the effectiveness of online classes, we feel that it is of the utmost importance that teachers assess their courses and share their experiences with their colleagues. Very little scholarly research has been done on the teaching of writing using distance learning technology, but a growing body of research in distance education emphasizes the importance of critical implementation and assessment of distance courses. We created the following set of questions to help instructors assess their courses, and the list of suggested readings at the end of this report provides further reference material:

• How well did the course fulfill your original objectives?
• How would you revise your original objectives in light of your experience in the course?
• Did distance learning technology enhance the course or 'get in the way'? How so?
• Did the course attract the type of audience you originally expected? How so?
• Were your expectations about students' prior knowledge realistic? How so?
• How well did students navigate the course and complete the assignments?
• How would you re-design the course if you were to teach it again?

The first method we used to evaluate the effectiveness of the course was a traditional course evaluation. Our contact in the College of Extended Education suggested posting a form that students could print, fill out, and mail to us, but we decided that it made more sense to post the form on the class website as a survey that students could fill out anonymously. Blackboard CourseInfo tabulated the results so that we could see how many students selected each of the available choices for each question. Not having access to an

6

evaluation form that might be used for online classes, we modified the form currently used by the Department of English by excluding the questions that were irrelevant to this class because of its online format. However, an evaluation form designed specifically for online writing classes would better assess the effectiveness of the class. Most of the suggestions that the students provided in the comments section of the form have been incorporated in this report.

Conclusion and Suggestions for the Future

In our experience teaching ENG 301 in an online format during Summer Session I 1999, we encountered several difficulties that need to be addressed before the Department of English proceeds with offering other courses online:

• We should be thinking critically about why we want to offer distance education classes, who the audience will be, and how they will work. We discovered through the development of the Computers and Writing program that it is better to plan a program based on research and scholarly discussion than to rush into the implementation of technology without critical thinking. We should be theorizing about the purpose and audience of these courses first, how large they should be, and talking about how the offering of distance learning courses will fit into the goals of the Writing Programs, the English Department, and the university as a whole.
• There is little communication between the Department of English and the College of Extended Education at this time. A good working relationship must exist between these two departments in order to support instructors teaching distance education courses. The College of Engineering, for example, seems to have developed a good relationship with the College of Extended Education. We might learn from them how to do this as we develop our own online courses.
• The technical support available from the College of Extended Education is limited, as they are trying to support a large number of instructors with few staff members. Quite a bit of prior knowledge is needed on the part of the instructors developing online courses. Many instructors in our program would be overwhelmed by the amount of work it takes to develop an online course, and it should be noted that many other institutions offer release time during the semester prior to teaching for such work.
• The Department of English offers no technical support to instructors who wish to put courses online. There is also no pedagogical support or training. The Computers and Writing program has continued to develop its training and professional development support for instructors teaching in computer-mediated classrooms, and similar support should be provided for teachers of online courses.
• There is no sufficient support structure within the university system at this time to help instructors make initial contact with students. Students registering for online courses need to receive information

7

• about the course ahead of time, and the instructor should not be responsible for tracking down students. The College of Extended Education recommends that instructors have an initial face-to-face meeting with the students the first day, but this defeats part of the purpose of offering the course online, and it puts at a disadvantage students who cannot make it to the meeting (the very students the course is designed to serve).

• There is no structure in place to help instructors assess their courses. The traditional course evaluation form should be available in an online format, and the questions should be changed to be applicable to a distance learning course.

• The university offers no incentive to instructors who develop online courses. While we heard that the College of Extended Education offers a $300 incentive to instructors who develop distance education classes, we found this not to be true. The College informed us that individual departments generally offer this incentive to faculty developing online courses, but that the College of Extended Education itself offers no incentive. Because the front-end workload for an online class is a great deal larger than the amount of work done before the semester begins for a traditional class, the English Department might consider offering release time to instructors the semester before they teach a distance education course for the first time so that they have time to seek out the assistance they need. Release time would possibly be more useful and appropriate for the situation than a cash incentive.

We found teaching on online course to be a rewarding and challenging experience. We look forward to helping the English Department move toward offering online courses, but we hope that as a whole we will move cautiously, thinking critically about the implementation of technology in instruction. We have learned the importance of critical use and cautious implementation of computers in face-to-face writing classrooms, and the same caution should apply as we move into the virtual classroom.

8

Suggested Readings

Anson, C. M. (1999). Distant voices: Teaching writing in a culture of technology. College English, 61, 261-280.

Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (1995). Introduction. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 3. Distance learning (pp. 1-12). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Blumenstyk, G. (1999, April 9). The marketing intensifies in distance learning: Some educators value the options; others fear vendors set the agenda. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A27-A28, A30.

Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers. Computers and the Humanities, 49, 49-65.

Curran, C. (1996). Distance teaching at the university level: Historical perspective and potential. In G. Fandel, R. Bartz, & F. Nickolmann (Eds.), University level distance education in Europe: Assessment and perspectives (pp. 19-31). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.

Cyrs, T. E. (1997). Competence in teaching at a distance. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 15-18). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Ely, D. (1992). Trends in educational technology. Syracuse: NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. Frick, T. W. (1991). Restructuring education through technology (Fastback series No. 326). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. New York: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R. (1990). An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4, 13-24.

9

Halpern, J. W., & Liggett, S. (1984). Computers and composing: How the new technologies are changing writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Hawisher, G. E., LeBlanc, P., Moran, C., & Selfe, C. L. (1996). Computers and the teaching of writing in American higher education, 1979-1994: A history. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hawisher, G., & Selfe, C. (1991). The rhetoric of technology in the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication, 42, 55-65.

Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 30-42.

Keegan, D. (1980). On defining distance education. Distance Education, 1, 13-36.

Lewis, R., & Spencer, D. (1986). What is open learning? An introduction to the series. London: Council for Educational Technology.

Mason, L. D., Duin, A. H., & Lammers, E. (1994). Linking learners: Structuring a mentoring via telecommunications course. Computers and Composition, 11, 123-135.

McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Minock, M., & Shor, F. (1995). Crisscrossing Grand Canyon: Bridging the gaps with computer conferencing. Computers and Composition, 12, 355-365.

Moore, M. G. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. Open Learning, 5, 10-15.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Is teaching like flying? A total systems view of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 1-10.

Palmquist, M., Kiefer, K., Hartvigsen, J., & Goodlew, B. (1998). Transitions: Teaching writing in computer-supported and traditional classrooms. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

10

Pfefferle, W. T. (1999). Writing that matters: A rhetoric for the new classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Porter, L. (1997). Creating the virtual classroom: Distance learning with the internet. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Saba, F., & Shearer, R. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2, 9-24.

Selfe, C. (1999) Technology and literacy: A story about the perils of not paying attention. College Composition and Communication, 50, 411-436.

Shale, D. (1990). Toward a reconceptualization of distance education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Contemporary issues in American distance education (pp. 333-343). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Snell, R. S., Hodgson, V. E., & Mann, S. J. (1987). Beyond distance teaching towards open learning. In V. E. Hodgson, S. J. Mann, & R. S. Snell (Eds.), Beyond distance teaching towards open learning (pp. 161-170). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Stacey, D., Goodman, S., & Stubbs, T. D. (1996). The new distance learning: Students, teachers, and texts in cross-cultural electronic communication. Computers and Composition, 13, 293-302.

Swiencicki, J. (1996). Challenging the limits of the composition telecourse. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 23, 179-185.

Verduin, J. R., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11

Developing and Delivering an Online Writing Class at ASU:

A Report on the Pilot Section of ENG 301

Susan Heck and Viktorija Todorovska

Executive Summary

Successful distance education classes target specific audiences that are not served by 'traditional' face-to-face classes, and it is essential that instructors and administrators carefully consider the reasons for offering a class in an online format and what audience the course will serve. We chose to teach ENG 301, Writing for the Professions, online because the class explores writing practices in the students' future professions which increasingly incorporate technology, and students in upper-division classes have more experience with college classes and are more familiar with the university system. We chose not to teach a first-year composition class because the retention rates for distance education courses are low, and support for students in distance learning courses at ASU is still developing. While we were happy to see that our course was able to accommodate students with varying degrees of prior experience with computers, we were acutely aware of the fact that all of the students in our class had a computer and access to the Internet at home. We realize that this requirement must have excluded some potential students and that access to technology is still a crucial issue when considering the offering of online courses. Through the experience of teaching an online class at ASU, we discovered several challenges that the English Department will need to address in order for online classes to be successful. Technical support and pedagogical support for online classes must be developed in the department as the front-end workload for developing an online class is overwhelming and often necessitates release time at other institutions. Additionally, better communication between the Department of English and the College of Extended Education could improve support as the class is in session. Currently, teachers must find ways to contact their students at the beginning of the term to make sure they can find the class; there is no reliable system in place to contact students. Finally, careful assessment of the effectiveness of online classes will help the department to build course offerings reflectively and thoughtfully. We need to continually assess that teachers have appropriate support as they develop and teach the course, and we must also be certain that we are meeting students' needs. We found teaching on online course to be a rewarding and challenging experience. We look forward to helping the English Department move toward offering online courses, but we hope that as a whole we will move cautiously, thinking critically about the implementation of technology in instruction. We have learned the importance of critical use and cautious implementation of computers in face-to-face writing classrooms, and the same caution should apply as we move into the virtual classroom.