Electronic Discussion Groups: Using E-mail as an Instructional
Strategy in a Graduate Seminar
Brent Wilson, May Lowry, Philip Koneman, and Rionda Osman-Jouchoux
University of Colorado
Campus Box 106 P. O. Box 173364
Denver CO 80217-3364
bwilson@carbon.cudenver.edu
Good teachers and instructional designers today are always
open to learning effective strategies that will help students
build meaningful representations of content. Students need
opportunities to:
* work with the tools of the domain,
* use the domain's concepts in design and production
activities, and
* carry on conversations using the vocabulary of the
practice community.
In academic settings, class discussions have been an important
mechanism for helping students learn a domain's language.
Students need to practice using the terms and concepts of their
new domain. They need to achieve a certain comfort level with
the new discourse and its accompanying rules, conventions, and
worldview.
Over the past 10 years, electronic mail ("e-mail") has become
another venue for knowledge-based conversations,
complementing or sometimes replacing traditional
face-to-face discussion. Hundreds of user groups have sprung
up on the Internet, each clustering around a different topic or
interest area. A growing number of educators have begun to tap
the potential of e-mail communications for use within their
classes. Kearley (1993) lists a number of educational
initiatives making use of the Internet for example. The term
computer-mediated communications (CMC) has come into use
to denote activities such as e-mail, Internet access, computer
conferencing, and electronic bulletin boards.
The literature provides several reports of the use of e-mail in
higher education classrooms covering a wide variety of
disciplines, including journalism (Smith, 1992), engineering
(Downing, 1988), English (Murray, 1988), business education
(Hardy, 1992), writing (Mabrito, 1992), and nursing (Lyness,
1992). Holden and Wedman (1993) provide a valuable review of
educational uses of CMC. In a Delphi study surveying experts'
opinions, they found experts predicting growth in classroom
uses of CMC to facilitate routine tasks such as distribution of
handouts and syllabi, collection and grading of assignments,
and communications between students and teachers. Koneman
(1994) describes a case study of such an approach to classroom
communications.
We have assigned the term electronic discussion groups to the
use of e-mail as a vehicle for carrying on conversations about
academic content and work projects. In important ways,
electronic discussion groups behave and serve a function
similar to traditional classroom discussions. As stated,
students have opportunities to engage in discourse practices
of the domain. Electronic discussion groups are social units
that share features of group dynamics with other groups.
Participants must "find a voice" within the group and work to
maintain a sense of group identity of cohesion.
In other ways, e-mail functions differently from classroom
conversations:
* E-mail is self-paced, and therefore gives people an
opportunity to reflect on their contributions to the discussion.
* Discussants can participate at a time and place that is
convenient to them.
* E-mail provides automatic notes in the form of a written
record of discus sion and references mentioned in the
discussion.
* As mentioned above, e-mail can be excellent for people who
have difficulty or hesitation expressing themselves in the more
public setting of the classroom.
* E-mail discussion can be disjointed because of the nature of
the technology. Discussants experience a delay time in
responding ("batch" or "multi-speed" effect), so the discussion
may have moved on before someone has a chance to contribute.
* Discussion can also be confusing because the group,
responding at different times, ends up discussing several
themes at once ("multi-level" effect).
Some of the unique characteristics of electronic discussion
groups require careful instructional design to make best use of
the medium. Precisely because of those unique characteristics,
electronic discussion groups can often complement traditional
classroom discussions and activities in meeting the learning
needs of students.
The purpose of our study was to explore the use of electronic
discussion groups in a readings-based graduate seminar . We
were particularly interested in addressing the following
questions:
1. To what extent would class members participate in the
electronic discussion group?
2. In what ways would participation enhance or detract
from learning?
3. In what ways would student anxiety affect their
participation?
4. What were some limitations or negative aspects of an
electronic discussion group?
5. How can an electronic discussion complement in-class
discussion?
6. What preparation and support are necessary in order for
an electronic discussion to work successfully?
7. Would an electronic discussion serve to integrate
non-attending students with the rest of the class? Can
attending and non-attending students develop
relationships via e-mail that contribute to learning?
Method
Setting
The participants in our study were a 14-member graduate
seminar at the University of Colorado at Denver, a regional
urban university. The class was an Educational Psychology
seminar titled Cognition and Instruction. All class members
were current or former teachers, or corporate trainers, with a
range of experience using computers and e-mail; most were
enrolled through the Instructional Technology division.
The course was offered in an intensive four-week summer
term, meeting three times weekly. The class was organized
along a classic seminar format. There were core readings in
topics on cognition and instruction, and regular class meetings
to discuss the topics. In addition to class participation,
students contributed to a HyperCard database of key ideas on
cognition, and published a mini-journal of collaboratively
written papers at the end of the term.
As an alternative to submittin traditional reactions to the
readings, students were encouraged to participate with each
other and the instructor in an electronic conversation about
the readings and related content. The first day of class,
members were briefly instructed in e-mail use. Most students
had or set up for the course modems at home; three students
came to the university to access their e-mail accounts. Two
students were admitted into the class who could not attend
regular class sessions. These students participated as
distance learners. One of them contributed actively to the
electronic discussion group; the other did not.
Individual postings were circulated to group members in
bulletin-board fashion using a distribution list. Over a period
of four weeks, a 478K file of conversation was generated by
group members. Students quickly adapted to an informal style
of e-mail conversation, which is sometimes considered to be
halfway between spoken and written discourse. Much of the
discussion reacted to readings; significant portions of the
material were elaborations on related themes, technical
support suggestions, and social interaction.
Data Sources
Our sources of data consisted of the following:
1. E-mail log (478K). As the course proceeded, Brent
maintained a file contain ing the class's e-mail
correspondence. Two students also kept similar files, which
were kept as backups. The e-mail log was analyzed for:
* quantity and frequency, and time and date of
participation
* content analysis on types of responses (summary of
readings, evaluation of readings, application to practice,
related topics, technical support, social interaction and group
maintenance comments)
* informal qualitative analysis (e.g., e-mail style and
conventions, invented vocabulary, group jokes and stories).
2. End-of-course group interview. We conducted an
audiotaped interview on the last day of class without the
instructor present. Topics were the quality and effect of the
electronic discussion, and their suggestions on electronic
discussion groups as an instructional strategy.
3. End-of-course survey. A 33-item questionnaire was also
administered on the last day of class. Students were queried
on demographics, prior history and experience with e-mail, and
behavioral self reports on use of the e-mail; a Likert scale on
attitudes and evaluation of the e-mail experience; and
open-ended questions on their assessment of the use of the
electronic discussion group in the class.
Results
1. To what extent did class members participate in the
electronic discussion group?
The collection of e-mail messages from Cognition and
Instruction occupies 478K of disk space and consists of 287
recorded messages. Excepting one distance learner, all class
members participated to some degree. One distance learner,
Grace, compensated for her non-attendance in class by
contributing heavily to the electronic discussion group. The
mean number of messages sent per person is 22, and the mean
message length is 32 lines. TableJ1 below lists for each
participant the total number of messages sent, the total
number of lines sent, and the mean length of messages. A tally
of the messages sent in various categories is included in the
content analysis presented in Appendix A.
sender code total messages total lines sent mean message length
Allison 14 328 23
Barbara 9 525 58
Cathy 16 596 37
Don 2 76 38
Eileen 18 458 25
Frank 16 468 29
Grace 71 2473 34
Hope 26 709 27
Iris 8 185 23
Julie 21 756 36
Knute 17 566 33
Larry 26 665 25
Mike 43 1151 26
Totals 287 8956 32
One message (2081 characters) has special formatting and
has been normalized to 45 lines, based on the average line (46
characters) of the average message (32 lines).
Table 1. Quantity and size of messages produced.
Traffic patterns.
The traffic of messages by date is shown in
Figure 1. The total of messages for the entire group is
represented by the solid, dark squares. The messages of the
most prolific sender are represented by the shaded circles. The
other two curves represent the messages of the two
participants having the most nearly average statistical profile
(17 messages of 30 lines average, and 17 messages of 33 lines
average, respectively). The large crosses represent the dates
on which reading assignments were due and discussion could
begin: Thursday 8 July, Monday 12 July, Tuesday 13 July,
Thursday 15 July, Monday 19 July, Tuesday 20 July, Thursday
22 July, Monday 26 July, Tuesday 27 July.
Figure 1. Message traffic by date.
2. In what ways did participation enhance or detract from
learning?
The frequencies for various survey items are fully reported in
Appendix B. Based on those survey responses and interviews,
students strongly believed that the electronic discussion group
implemented enhanced their learning in the course. Class
members generally felt that the e-mail component of class was
valuable, describing it as
* interesting,
* helpful, and
* a good idea.
Students strongly agreed with the statement, "I would like to
use e-mail in future courses."
Beyond student reports, a content analysis of the e-mail was
completed and reported in Appendix A. Most of the e-mail
discourse was content-related, either reacting formally or
informally to the readings, or reacting to other students'
content-related postings. Examples of such postings are also
provided in Appendix A.
Students in interviews indicated that e-mail interactions were
preferred over formal reactions to readings that in a
traditional class are read and graded by the instructor. E-mail
expanded the audience from the instructor to the entire class.
A direct causal link between e-mail use and learning is
difficult to establish, but this problem is shared by virtually
all instructional strategies within the repertory of teachers
and instructional designers. The success of instructional
strategies will critically depend upon the skill in designing and
implementing them in the learning environment. Even so, a
great deal remains to be learned concerning student thinking
and learning processes as they engage in electronic discussion
groups. The present study assessed the impact of e-mail
through post measures and e-mail logs, leaving unexamined the
details of student processing of tasks.
3. In what ways did student anxiety affect their
participation?
Because most students had not previously used e-mail, there
was some evidence of initial anxiety in using the technology.
About 20 to 30 minutes was devoted to class periods at the
beginning of the term, explaining logistical details and
clarifying expectations for use. A relatively high proportion of
e-mail at the outlet constituted public (or private messages to
Brent) pleas for help with the technology. About half the
students reported that "learning e-mail was a frustrating
experience."
After the first week and a half, however, students' logistical
concerns were mostly resolved, and students became more
comfortable with the technology's requirements. At the
conclusion of the course, students seem to have largely
overcome their frustrations and fears. They reported their use
of e-mail in the class to be:
* mildly hard work
* mildly frustrating
* rather convenient
* rather comfortable
* very enjoyable.
4. What were some limitations or negative aspects of an
electronic discussion group?
In the end-of-class interviews, students commented on a
number of problems with their use of electronic discussion
groups. Some students had limited access to modems,
requiring a visit to campus. Because of their limited access,
these students would often read postings "late," after the
conversation had "gone by." In such cases, students sometimes
felt like observers rather than participants in the discussion,
perhaps analogous to listening to a class discussion but rarely
speaking up.
Some students expressed difficulty coping with the multiple
"threads" current at any given time on the net. That is, a given
day's mail might include discussions of three or four issues.
Some confusion could result from such "multi-level"
discussions.
A few students continued to have technical
problems - particularly with their editing software - that
continued into the term. In a couple of cases, software
settings would not allow a student to back up and delete errors.
While most of these problems were eventually resolved,
several postings were sent out that were truncated, garbled, or
difficult to read.
Because the class met three times a week for three-hour
blocks, several students were had-pressed to devote adequate
time to their e-mail participation. There was some sentiment
that e-mail sometimes became "busywork" amidst all the
requirements of the course. Not all postings were high quality
analyses; a couple of students reported confusion about how to
deal with the mail volume; what to read carefully, what to
respond to, what to delete after skimming, etc. While this may
be considered an important metacognitive outcome, students
reported the need for guidance in this area.
5. How can an electronic discussion complement in-class
discussion?
We found that electronic discussion groups were able to
complement traditional in-class discussions in a couple of
ways. First, distance learners were able to engaged in dialogue
about the readings and course content without actually
attending class. Of the two distance learners in the class, one
contributed heavily to e-mail conversations, and the other (who
incidentally was a competent e-mail user) did not participate
and earned an incomplete in the class. It seems that distance
learners may need some degree of attention to ensure their
participation and feeling of connection to the class, but that
once they develop a habit of partici pation, e-mail can be a
useful device.
The second question concerns the regular attending class
members. Did these students find e-mail to be a helpful
complement to class discussions?
Students only mildly agreed with the statement, "E-mail made
class discussion more meaningful." Very often, in-class
discussion would take a different turn from the reactions to
readings over e-mail. In some respects, the electronic
discussion group gave the class more freedom; because certain
topics were well-covered over the net, the instructor
occasionally felt more freedom in turning class discussion
toward more advanced topics.
Occasionally the instructor or a student would address in class
concepts introduced over e-mail. The instructor reported using
e-mail as an assessment device, looking for misconceptions or
threads of thought worth pursuing further in class.
A final point is e-mail's usefulness as an alternative vehicle
for individual expression. Just as Grace found e-mail a
valuable alternative to class attendance. one or two class
members tended seemed to participate more on e-mail than
face-to-face. It is possible that e-mail may have provided a
more comfortable arena for expression of opinion for these
students; the differential response toward e-mail of different
types of students deserves continued investigation.
In sum, students strongly agreed that e-mail was a useful part
of the course and did not interfere with class discussions.
Although the two conversations did not always heavily
intersect, they generally tended to complement and reinforce
one another.
6. What preparation and support are necessary in order for
an electric discussion to work successfully?
Students mildly agreed with the statement, "There was
adequate collegial support in using E-mail." In interviews,
students expressed a consensual opinion that:
* an introductory training session is necessary if students
are expected to use e-mail
* home access to e-mail should be a course requirement;
* e-mail discussion would be improved if discussion
guidelines were posted.
* students would have benefited from a "strategy sheet"
providing more details about logistics and expected use of
e-mail for class discussion.
Because of its newness and technical nature, the successful
use of e-mail depends heavily on careful implementation and
support. Developing a support system for students is a matter
of careful initial design coupled with formative tryout and
revision.
7. Did an electronic discussion serve to integrate
non-attending students with the rest of the class? Can
attending and non-attending students develop relationships via
e-mail that contribute to learning?
There is no question that participation in the electronic
discussion group allowed Grace to feel part of the class and to
benefit from interactions with other class members. As the
term progressed, most class members developed a feeling for
GraceUs personality and contributions. Her attendance at the
last day of class finally introduced her in person to the rest of
the class, and provided a suitable ending to her class
participation.
Discussion
The use of electronic mail for conducting educational
discussions is extending beyond distance education into
traditional classrooms. Our study is one of an increasing
number of reports along these lines. This should not be
surprising, since e-mail is becoming a daily learning tool for
increasing numbers of profes sionals. The questions that
remain for instructional design have to do with:
* understanding the function of electronic discussion
groups within a traditional course structure; and
* developing approaches to ensure success of electronic
discussion groups; that is, where all students participate with
minimal frustration and anxiety, and the experience is a
meaningful one that enhances learning.
Our study shows how electronic discussion groups can function
in a seminar to helps meet the needs of both attending and
non-attending students. E-mail activities were shown to
complement in-class discussions and other class assign ments.
Many design questions remain, however, including:
* how to minimize startup anxiety and frustration;
* how to ensure active participation of all class members;
* how to provide instructor modeling and guidance to give
direction to the group.
While some of this knowledge must remain contextualize
within local learning settings, further research should provide
practitioners with greater understanding of underlying learning
and instructional processes related to electronic discussion
groups.
References
Downing, T. E. (1988). Improving instructor/student
interaction with electronic mail. Engineering Education, 78 (4)
247-250.
Hardy, V. (1992). Introducing computer mediated
communication into participative man agement education.
Education and Training Technology, 29 (4) 325-331.
Holden, M. C., & Wedman, J. F. (1993). Future issues of
computer-mediated com munication: The results of a Delphi
study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41
(4), 5P24.
Kearsley, G. (1993, Autumn/Winter). Education @ Internet.
ED-TECH Review, 43P45.
Lowry, M., Koneman, P., Osman-Jouchoux, R., & Wilson, B.
(1994). Electronic discussion groups: Using e-mail as an
instructional strategy. TechTrends, 39 (2), in press.
Lyness, A. (1992, February). Social learning and electronic
communication: Development of a conceptual framework. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for
Educational Communication and Technology, Washington, D. C.
Mabrito, M. (1992). Communication and high-apprehensive
writers: Rethinking the collaborative process. Bulletin of the
Association for Business Communication, 55 (4) 26-29.
Murray, D. (1988). Computer mediated communication:
Implications for ESP. English for Special Purposes, 7 (1) 3-18.
Romiszowski, A. and de Haas, J. (1989). Computer mediated
communication for instruction. Educational Technology, 10,
7-14.
Smith, C. (1992, August). Teaching computer mediated
communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication. Montreal.