|
Structure Using Cohort 1 as the study sample,
there were 50 "items" on the opening page (37 actually used, as many were deleted because they were "test items" from first week or mistakes along the way), linked to the beginning page of each item where the discussion
began. To the far right on the opening page were two columns: New and Last. The "new" column was for any responses that had not been read (by the particular student who was logged on – the server distinguishes between
each student, by user name and passcode, and then individualizes the "home" page according to what they have read). The "last" column showed the total number of responses, and linked to the last page of responses that
had been read. (See Appendix C for examples of the Web pages.) The long list of 37 items seems to be a little cumbersome. Dividing the whole conference into smaller "spaces" would seem to have made
more sense, and the students did express some disorientation in reference to the great number of items. The average response by the students was not more than a paragraph or two. Typically, the
responses were well written with little glaring mistakes in spelling and grammar. The students seemed to understand and learn a couple of points over the semester that were evident in the changes in posting: (a) longer
responses were more neatly divided into small paragraphs, making it easier on the reader; and, (b) brevity became valued as opposed to long-winded philosophizing. Other subtle writing behaviors were also adhered to,
such as not writing in all capitals (which can be a common ploy in online text for emphasis), and the strategic use of space, punctuation, emoticons (e.g., :) is a smiley face turned sideways, :-) is another smiley face
with a nose), and graphics. Clearly, the students were very aware of the audience when communicating, and were also open about giving and accepting critical comments on the topic of online communication. |
