Education and Information Technologies 5:2 (2000): 85±101. © 2000 Kluwer ... the development of electronic curriculum in two undergraduate courses.
Education and Information Technologies 5:2 (2000): 85±101 # 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Manufactured in The Netherlands
Web-based learning: Challenges in using the Internet in the undergraduate curriculum. WILLIAM J. MONTELPARE School of Kinesiology, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5E1, Canada ALLISON WILLIAMS Department of Geography, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Saskatoon SK, Canada S7N 5A5
Often compared to Gutenberg's introduction of the printing press in the 1450s, the use of the Internet in education, and especially within the undergraduate curriculum is ubiquitous. Yet the development and presentation of electronic undergraduate curriculum speci®cally on the Internet is a relatively new venture. Although guidelines for course development are emerging as quickly as the technology is introduced, several problems associated with i) style (appropriateness and effectiveness), ii) process (mechanistic and communication based), and iii) edited content of relevant information, continue to exist in the typical undergraduate applications. This paper describes the development of electronic curriculum in two undergraduate courses. The courses were an ``Introduction to Quantitative Methods'', and an ``Introduction to Epidemiology''; both of which typically use computers and as such, the introduction of advanced technology was not expected to have been an issue. In addition to the successes and shortcomings experienced in the presentation of these courses, the paper discusses an underlying theoretical framework upon which the development of the Internet components of the courses were based. Keywords: internet, electronic curriculum, web-based learning, webulators, computer-assisted instruction.
Introduction Computers and multimedia do not necessarily enhance a learning environment as shown by the research of Muldner, Muldner and Van Neen, (1997). However, incorporating multimedia and computer assisted instruction into the undergraduate curriculum may be a useful adjunct to the processes of learning. For example, Yaverbaum, Kulkami and Wood (1997) indicated that integrating multimedia into the traditional learning environment not only enriches the style of presentation, but has the added capability to increase the learner's retention. Despite the lack of comparative empirical studies demonstrating bene®ts from the use versus non-use of multimedia (Muldner, Muldner and Van Neen, 1997; Najar, 1996; Yang, 1996), several university instructors and administrators are considering multimedia technology as an acceptable part of curriculum presentation. The strength of the multimedia presentation is in the ability to provide an environment that is not only dynamically
86
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
visual and auditory, but in many forms the multimedia presentation is interactive (Yaverbaum, et al, 1997; Najar, 1996). Interactive presentations require interactive learners. Therefore, accepting that the active learner has an advantage over the passive learner, interactive multimedia will provide a more enriched learning environment than the more traditional passive learning approaches. The versatility and interactive characteristics of the Internet have established it as a useful tool in multimedia presentations of scholarly information (Maddux and LaMontJohnson, 1997; Lass, 1996). In most universities, the Internet is generally available and has thus led to the increased use of ``electronic'' curriculum in undergraduate teaching (Davis, 1995). Yet the Internet offers more than mere versatility. The Internet perpetuates ``intermedia synergy'' (Crane, 1997) which can facilitate ``web-based learning''. Intermedia synergy refers to the capability to maintain instructor-speci®c styles of delivery while combining information from several sources. The popularity of the Internet in adult education, especially as a medium for information presentation to various groups of learners, is demonstrated by a continual increase in enrollments in virtual universities. According to Flake (1996), the Internet is moving forward to provide ``on-line'' courses for universities, government and corporate staff training, sharing of ideas and information, or developing positive learning experiences. Yet despite the ubiquitous characteristics of the Internet, not all post-secondary institutions have the equipment nor the technological expertise required to provide on-line education across the curriculum. As such, many individual faculty members have taken it upon themselves to incorporate the use of the Internet into their instruction and the presentation of their curriculum. This paper describes how a single faculty member in a small teaching university developed electronic curriculum for undergraduate teaching in a fourth year ``Introduction to Epidemiology'' course (n 20) and a third year ``Quantitative Methods'' course (n 110). The intention of this investigation was to identify the perceptions of undergraduate students using the Internet for course-speci®c tasks. By examining a number of different forms of data, the paper outlines the advantages and disadvantages of using the Internet in the classroom. To this end, the challenges of developing electronic curriculum for undergraduate teaching are discussed. A qualitative research strategy was the primary approach used to assess the impact of using the Internet as a tool in undergraduate teaching and learning. The results make clear some of the challenges one may face in attempting to develop electronic curriculum for undergraduate teaching. Yet the discussion of the research results indicates that the events experienced during the development of the electronic curriculum for both courses are consistent with other educators who reported problems as well as successes in developing electronic curriculum (Crosby and Stelovksy, 1995). Theoretical Framework Currently, there are at least three major information delivery networks available to researchers and educators: i) BITNET, ii) the Internet, and iii) NREN (National Research
WEB-BASED LEARNING
87
and Education Network) (Blake, 1996). BITNET, and NREN are less popular systems of educational material delivery. BITNET is primarily an academic-based ®le-sharing system which includes electronic mail delivery (e-mail) that is shared by academic institutions in Canada and the United States. NREN (National Research and Education Network) was developed after the Internet was determined to be a ``highly congested superhighway''. NREN was conceptualized as a network that could extend beyond e-mail and research ®le sharing to alleviate access and acquisition problems associated with the utilization of various networks (Blake, 1996). Perhaps because of its versatility and composition, the most popular information delivery network continues to be the Internet. The Internet is referred to by Summers (1996) as a ``network of networks''. The Internet, which includes the World Wide Web, as well as several other ``specialized networks'', is comprised of multiple forms of electronic media servers connecting databases, list servers, and task-speci®c processors. The amount and growth of available information through the Internet is staggering; and as individuals become more involved with the uses of the Internet as a tool for research and presentation, they quickly realize the volume of data that are so easily accessible. Maddux and LaMontJohnson (1997), reported that the Internet has grown from 200 host servers in 1983 to more than 16 million host servers as of January 1997. Yet more spectacular is the concept that each of the host servers is associated with multiple users and therefore multiple interactions and exchanges of facts and information. Summers (1996) described the Internet's usefulness in providing opportunities to reach beyond the traditional school walls toward global learning. The access to information is vast and the Internet enhances our ability to acquire information. Yet the opportunities for the learner to develop knowledge from the growing vastness of information is not so clearly de®ned. Recall T.S. Eliot's (1962) quote: ``Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?'' Instructors who wish to use multimedia to present information as an effective addition to their curriculum are responsible for facilitating the opportunities that lead the student beyond the level of information to knowledge and eventually wisdom. Figure 1 illustrates a suggested theoretical framework upon which to develop electronic curriculum. The model in Figure 1 is a modi®cation of an earlier constructivist model presented by Winn (1997). The modi®cation is in the linear ¯ow of events from facts to wisdom. Figure 1 depicts an information processing hierarchy beginning at the ``facts'' stage (Stage 1) where the learner begins with bits of data in several forms including: text, numbers, graphics, sound, code, and video. As the learner moves forward in the hierarchical model to the second stage, the data are compiled and presented as ``information''. This ``information stage'' denotes the structure of the Internet. The Internet being thus a repository of compiled data that through the organization and presentation of data constitutes information.
88
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
Figure 1. A modi®ed constructivist theory.
Proceeding further into the model the learner encounters a third stage, which is the concept of ``knowledge''. Knowledge is here de®ned as information, which has been contextualized. That is, knowledge represents that point at which the learner gives speci®c meaning to the information. A taxonomy of learning is included after the ``knowledge stage'' has been reached to indicate that the acquisition of knowledge is for some learners a terminal point. However, others may proceed through the taxonomy, moving the knowledge to a stage of action (Stage 4), which is a characteristic of wisdom. The ``fact-information-knowledge-action'' model illustrates the potential for interconnectivity both across and between each of the stages. Considered either in its entirety or at the separate stages, the model is recursive. At any point in the processing of information by a learner, the bits of data may themselves be moved higher or lower in the model. For example, bits of data that have been contextualized as information may actually be reduced to facts as a new stage of processing emerges. Likewise, actions that are responses to a speci®c level of knowledge produce data which can also be placed into the model at the ``facts'' or ``information'' stage. This interconnectivity promotes relational thought and thus effective learning (Yang, 1996). The ``fact-information-knowledge-action'' model has a utility within the development of electronic curriculum. The model is a guide for integrating ``web-based'' curriculum into undergraduate courses by evaluating multimedia presentations and learning tasks in reference to the various stages of the model. The importance of using such a theoretical framework when integrating the Internet as an instructional tool in the undergraduate curriculum is explored in the following two cases studies.
WEB-BASED LEARNING
89
The Case Studies Introduction to Epidemiology The following two case studies demonstrate the evolution that occurred in developing electronic curriculum for undergraduate students. Consider ®rst a fourth year course entitled: ``Introduction to Epidemiology''. Although the primary learning objective was to introduce the student to various concepts of epidemiology at an introductory level, a secondary objective was to introduce the students to the Internet and demonstrate the usefulness of the Internet in ``higher education''. Twenty students were enrolled in a half-credit, half-year Health Studies course, which was comprised of a weekly two-hour lecture and a one-hour laboratory. Students were expected to have had exposure to a statistical software program, as well as some background in quantitative methods. The stages of events used to incorporate the Internet into this course are presented in Figure 2. The Internet was included in the following three ways:
1. as a ``place'' for students to access the syllabus and retrieve announcements of changes in course requirements [Stage 1 of Figure 1]; 2. as a ``place'' to access assignments (especially the data and programming statements of SAS: the Statistical Analysis System) [Stage 2 of Figure 1], and the data required for the activities required to complete the main project [Stage 4 of Figure 1]); 3. and as a ``place'' to use web-based calculators that demonstrated two speci®c epidemiological analytical techniques required in later assignments [Stage 3 of Figure 1].
Figure 2. Planned ``web-based'' interactions in an undergraduate Epidemiology course.
90
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
Incorporating the Internet into this undergraduate curriculum mirrors the four stages of constructivist theory presented in Figure 1. As indicated in Figure 2, merely presenting the syllabus on the web for students to download or print is equivalent to the ``presentation of facts''. No action is required by the student, but the student may choose to retrieve the facts on their own volition or simply refer to the on-line documentation at their convenience. Placing pre-designed SAS programs on the instructor's homepage as examples of the appropriate methods for problem solving re¯ects Stage 2 of the constructivist model (Figure 1). The SAS code represents information which could be modi®ed to resolve problems assigned by the instructor (Stage 3: knowledge). Likewise, including interactive ``javascripted'' web-based calculators, the ``Webulators'', into web pages re¯ects the knowledge stage of the constructivist model. Students were assigned theoretical problems in epidemiology and expected to use the Webulators to resolve the problems. Finally, the major project assigned for the end-of-term was intended to combine the student's knowledge of theoretical concepts with evaluative skills acquired to resolve an epidemiological issue. The project was intended to capture the ``wisdom'' or ``action''stage of the constructivist model (Figure 1). Quantitative Methods A serious problem in the presentation of undergraduate statistics=quantitative methods courses occurs when an instructor attempts to incorporate ``canned statistical software packages'' into a course while introducing the theoretical concepts of quantitative analysis. Although the instructor is well intentioned in selecting software that he=she feels is appropriate and effective in demonstrating the principles of statistical analysis, the learning objectives compete for top priority, as in the following example: ``to introduce students to the statistical software'' versus ``to introduce concepts of statistical analysis of numeric data''. Students often comment on various dif®culties in learning the nuances and idiosyncrasies of the software at the expense of learning the theories and procedures of quantitative methods. In an attempt to reduce the competition between learning objectives, and to change the focus of the undergraduate student to consider the computer as a tool for demonstrating statistical=quantitative methods, the second course entitled ``Quantitative Methods'' used the Internet as a repository of speci®c course-related information and as a calculator for selected quantitative methods. One hundred and ten students were enrolled in a third year, half-credit, half-year undergraduate course, which was comprised of a two-hour lecture and a one-hour laboratory, scheduled weekly. Students were required to have completed a prerequisite introductory course in research methods that included introductions to quantitative and qualitative methods. A brief introduction to a spreadsheet statistical software program, and standard textbook introduction to statistical methods for the behavioral sciences were also included in the prerequisite course. In this second course, the instructor used the interpreted language ``javascript'' to create web-based calculators (referred to as ``webulators''), as a replacement for the typical end-
WEB-BASED LEARNING
91
Figure 3. Planned ``web-based'' interactions in an undergraduate Quantitative Methods course.
user data processing packages (e.g. SAS, SPSS, Microsoft-Excel, or STATS VIEW). The ``webulators'' provided three main functions in the laboratory exercises. The webulators were intended to: 1. demonstrate the speci®c arithmetic operations used in calculating basic statistics (e.g. Student's ``t'' test, chi-square, and probability); 2. produce random events, such as the roll of dice or the random draw of sets of numbers from a ®nite sample; 3. and to create simulations of various types of frequency distributions (e.g. in-line scripted graphing functions). Evaluation Evaluative data was collected to determine the challenges in using the Internet in the undergraduate curriculum. Qualitative data were collected in focus groups to ascertain student perceptions of the utility of incorporating the Internet in each of the two independent, undergraduate courses. The ®rst focus group was used in the fourth year ``Introduction to Epidemiology'' course. The focus group consisted of seven students and was conducted three weeks after the ®nal exam. The second focus group, comprised of six students, was conducted one week after the ®nal examination to assess the third year ``Quantitative Methods'' course. In each focus group the participants discussed both the positive and problematic aspects of the course, focussing speci®cally upon the use of the electronic curriculum. Perceived advantages Students were con®dent about the many advantages of an electronic curriculum, including its relevance, accessibility, convenience, and self-directed approach. Each of the seven
92
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
students from the initial fourth year course focus group had various amounts of computer experience before taking the course and seemed to be quite sophisticated computer users. Of the seven students making up the focus group, ®ve had access to the internet at home. Students all agreed that there were many advantages to using the internet in the course. A summary of the perceived advantages to including the Internet into the curriculum is presented in Table 1. Being in their fourth year, students were very aware of the application of their learning to the impending job market. Consequently, they all mentioned how familiarity with the internet was useful and relevant: ``[Course was] up-to-date with computers. It was useful and relevant, it challenged people and the assignment was realistic and you had to get that data and analyze it just like epidemiologists do in the real world because they supposedly use SAS.'' (S1) ``It sort of provides people with a challenge to become familiar with new technology and this provides knowledge and experience.'' (S3) ``We learned current and useable skills. The material could be applied to other courses, other skills that I'll continue to use, helpful in job searching, learn a new computer language that is used by epidemiologists . . .'' (S4) ``Just the fact that it was relevant Ð I think that was something. We were taking an Epi class and we were not only just given background of epidemiology and what have you, but also part of the component was very relevant, hands-on attention to this information . . . the hands-on experience was a very effective way of teaching this material. I also gained a lot of con®dence from that hands-on experience. It's one thing to be taught something in lecture and even have someone else show it to you, but there's a lot to be gained from when you actually do it. That's where the learning comes in. The other thing was that we had an opportunity to be introduced to what I consider to be a pretty powerful package.'' (S6) ``I got hands-on use of the computer . . . . the access from home to school I think is needed in today's society because you can't do everything at the of®ce these days so you
Table 1. Noted advantages to including the Internet in the curriculum. useful and relevant (up-to-date) [gained] familiarity with technology provided knowledge & experience information transfer to other courses ability to access software & computer from home e-mail was an easy option to contact the professor the approach encouraged interactive teamwork
effective way of presenting material [gained] con®dence from hands-on experience [course was] challenging useful for future possibilities introduced to powerful software appreciated the self-directed learning approach increased computer literacy [in a general sense]
WEB-BASED LEARNING
93
have to use the tools you need to decide which to do Ðwork from home or on the bus with a laptop, or whatever. It gets you ready for the real world.'' (S5) As outlined in the last quote, convenience was discussed by those who were able to access the internet at home: ``Another pro was that you were able to access it from home; if you couldn't get into a computer lab, you could do it from home. This was a bene®t.'' (S2) `` . . . class notes were available both at home and at school.'' (S3) Easy access to the professor via e-mail was yet another convenience for the students interviewed: ``Also, through e-mail it was probably easier to contact the professor rather than going in during of®ce hours.'' (S3) Other students appreciated the ``self-directed learning approach'' (S5), where students ``had to learn on our own'' (S5). One student (S7) pointed out that such an approach encouraged interaction and teamwork, although some students felt unsupported: ``I liked that there were independent assignments because there were a lot of different levels in the class. There were some people who were really advanced and really knew what they were doing and other people who didn't have a clue.'' (S7) When asked whether the majority of the class were at a similar level of computer literacy, one student replied: ``I'd say almost half . . . [there was] a handful who had very little experience. I think we [the class] had the extreme; there was one person who had never even sat at a terminal . . . . Certain people knew what they were doing, but were never con®dent that they were doing it right and would never take the initiative.'' (S4) The fact that many different levels of computer expertise were represented in the class was one of the main problems discussed. Perceived disadvantages The different levels of computer literacy among students and the lack of con®dence in using computers as tools to complete assignments were noted as the primary problems by focus group participants. All focus group participants mentioned the dif®culty encountered by the class having various levels of computer literacy. Although the prerequisite courses included various
94
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
Table 2. Noted disadvantages to including the Internet in the curriculum.
too few students with adequate computer skills time lost getting all students to a common level of quantitative analysis and computer use dif®cult to get [some students] over computer roadblocks too few students with adequate quantitative analysis [statistics] skills many learners lost interest in the computational tasks participants noted that some students expressed feelings of frustration and being left behind feelings of inadequacy led to negative feelings on assignments the technology was never appreciated because of too many elementary learners in the courses in the Year 4 course, assignments were modi®ed to reduce anxiety and accomplish a meaningful outcome
computer experiences, it was obvious that many students demonstrated very weak computer skills. Placing assignments on the Internet compounded problems associated with any lack of competency in resolving quantitative methods tasks by adding the shortcomings of computer literacy: `` . . . we spent I don't know how many weeks or how much time was lost actually trying to ®gure out where everybody was at.'' (S6) `` . . . the problem came up of some people don't know how to use the computer, some do, some are in-between. So that was the main focus Ð to get over the computer roadblock, or whatever.'' (S5) ``I thought we spent even too much lecture time Ðwhich I thought was supposed to be epidemiology Ðgoing over problems people had in the lab . . . . real bore. But it was necessary for the other half of the class . . .'' (S4) ``I found that everybody was at different learning levels . . . . You're going to get that in any course, but when you're working with computers and you're working with this kind of technology, again everybody should be at the same level where everybody can continue and learn something.'' (S2) ``The real problem, though, was people's understanding. It doesn't matter if you have 15 people that know it and ®ve people that don'tÐ you're still going to have to catch up those ®ve people . . . . It doesn't matter how good the technology is if you can't cover it, because you're teaching ®ve people how to use the computer.'' (S3) Although students worked together to assist those who had little computer literacy, there was a strong feeling among the focus group participants that the learners ``lost interest'' (S6): ``Their lack of con®dence then turned very negative towards the project.'' (S6)
WEB-BASED LEARNING
95
`` . . . they just became too frustrated with not knowing what they were doing that they couldn't even concentrate on what they were supposed to be learning. They didn't really learn anything because they got too frustrated with trying to get to the same point that everyone else was at.'' (S4) As a result of the variations in student knowledge, the class had to be radically transformed, changing the expectations of students with regards to assignments: ``[Assignments were] changed three times because learning levels were just ¯uctuating.'' (S5) The challenge for educators is to develop a learning environment which is either ¯exible enough to accommodate a wide range of computer literacy backgrounds, or provide course entry to only those students that complete the speci®ed course prerequisites. Participants from the focus groups provided suggestions to improve the use of the Internet in the undergraduate curriculum. The suggestions included stricter adherence to the prerequisite screening process and requiring early preparation of students through an introductory computer competence course. Yet the Internet was not restricted to its use as a medium for the presentation of assignments. In the fourth year course, the Internet was used to present certain parts of the lecture material. Focus group participants stated that the learning environment was problematic. Participants reported such problems as not being able to see the projection screen because of the inadequacies of the LCD combined with inappropriate lighting. This problem led to students becoming frustrated with not ``getting'' the necessary course notes: `` . . . the classroom environment was not suitable; the lighting and seating arrangement and such was just not conducive to learning.'' (S6) `` . . . in class when everything was done through Power Point and the internet, you couldn't read anything, ever. Like, the lighting was ÐI don't know whether it was just a bunch of outside factors, but we were never able to take suf®cient notes because you couldn't really, you could write down what he was saying, but you didn't really have any main points that you could really read. It was really useless to have the overhead think set up because personally I could never see it and I have really good vision.'' (S7) Equipment breakdowns were common in the fourth year course, both in the lecture presentations and during the laboratory exercises. The most common process [equipment] problem was the inability to successfully access the Internet during the class or the labs. The instructor and the students were forced to work around these problems by changing the focus of the presentation, or rescheduling when possible: ``The computer equipment was not always functioning during class time . . . . This is now the lecture Ð well, it happened in lab as well, where assignments weren't
96
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
accessible . . . . Whether the main system was down or whether there was just a connection problem, I don't know.'' (S6) ``I would like to reiterate that the computers never worked in that lab. We had a lot of trouble . . . a lot of times the computer would shut down. We went there once and the whole lab was shut down; it was off-line.'' (S5) In addition to Internet accessibility problems, the focus group participants noted problems in accessing the computer labs. Because the hardware ``crashed'' at random times, especially when the students were in an assigned lab sessions, many students sought unoccupied computers at their own convenience. Such a practice meant that students from other courses often occupied terminals reserved for the prescheduled lab. Delays in students leaving the computer labs were constantly observed as students tried to get ``just one more thing'' completed before they surrendered their terminal. The focus group participants complained that it was always dif®cult to reserve computer terminals during off hours because of the increasing demand for computer generated assignments across the university (i.e. essays, laboratory write-ups, and research proposals): ``The accessibility for the computer labs sometimes Ð if it crashed, I could work on it from home, but if it crashed when you were in there working on your lab, you had to try and ®nd another time to get in there. It was sometime dif®cult, because I sometimes would like to work on it when I was at school and trying to get into the computer lab was just hard to do.'' (S2) `` . . . . sometimes assignments wouldn't work or we wouldn't be able to get in Ð that was sort of frustrating because you take the time to make the effort to get something done and it just wasn't possible to do it that way.'' (S7) ``I thought the assignments were very limited to computer availability if you didn't have access at home. If you didn't ®nish your assignments in the lab, you had to try and wait in line to get on the computers at school.'' (S4) When contemplating the challenges speci®c to the Introduction to Epidemiology course, focus group participants suggested that the development of an electronic curriculum be implemented slowly throughout the academic program and=or the academic year, as one participant indicated: ``I think if it were done in small steps over a number of years, instead of it just being all of it at once and having all these glitches. Whereas, just say, this year . . . two assignments [were on the web], and then over the summer . . . work on the webulatorÐ getting it so that it works all the time. Then next year, implement four assignments and the lecture. See what I mean? . . . we're coming from Ð every other course that we've all taken has been selection from textbooks to, all of a sudden, the entire course is on
WEB-BASED LEARNING
97
the net. That's too big a leap for a lot of people . . .. It's just such a leap from every other course that we've taken. It just seems like too much of a jump for a lot of people.'' (S4) Learning from Challenges As students made clear, there are many challenges in using electronic curriculum that still must be met. However, we are learning from our mistakes! Many of the challenges experienced in the initial course (fourth year ``Introduction to Epidemiology''), were addressed in the second course. The six students (third year ``Quantitative Methods'') who participated in the focus group discussion were considered sophisticated computer users. Three of the participants accessed the Internet from home, and ®ve of the six participants had a computer at home. As in the ®rst focus group, participants perceived the advantages of including the Internet into the course to be: usefulness and relevance, accessibility, convenience, and the self-directed approach to instruction=learning. Individuals were pleased to have been given an opportunity to learn about the usefulness of the Internet, and to have gained a level of ease with it. Participants indicated that they probably would not have accessed the Internet if they were not required to use it throughout the course. A few students had not used the Internet before and were pleased to have gained a level of pro®ciency with it: ``I thought that you got better acquainted with the internet . . . . I realized that the internet was a good way of learning and I've never really used the internet for anything else before . . . . I saw how many things could be done on the internet . . . You had to go to the internet to get the course outline. You had to go to the internet to get the assignments. That was good because you were forced to use it. I wouldn't have used it otherwise.'' (Sc) ``It gave us a chance to get on the computer and see what was possible on the internet, because I didn't realize with the webulator that you could just do that.'' (Se) At one point in the course, the professor was absent due to attending a conference. As such, two lectures were put on the web site. Students enjoyed having their notes written for them, as well as being able to revisit the site for review: ``I liked when lab work explanation and the two lectures . . . were on the internet. I liked the ability that I had to go back and check and to review the work that he had Ð compared to in the lecture where he would say something and if you didn't write it down in time, it was gone.'' (Sa) In comparing the responses of the participants from one focus group to the other, it was noticeable that the learning environment had improved. Students participating in the second focus group undoubtedly had a more appropriate lecture room in which to attend the course, and consequently had few comments to make about the learning environment.
98
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
Rather than noting the poor visibility of the screen, both the multimedia (Microsoft Power Point) and Internet presentations were described as ``visually appealing'' (Sa). Although administrative changes had been made so that the computer labs were more accessible, students continued to mention that some of the lab assignments took longer than the allocated one hour time limit. This meant that students had to arrange additional time to complete their weekly assignments. Arranging additional access to the computer labs was a responsibility that the students did not appreciate. Focus group participants complained about the open access to the labs by students from other courses during the prescheduled course times. The increased demand on the facility led to dif®culties in accessing the software and printing. Although changes had been made to make the computer lab more accessible, students continued to mention the fact that some of the labs took a lot longer than the hour allocated to them: ``It was okay for that hour, but it was really hard to get into the lab outside of the lab time.'' (Sb) For those students accessing the Internet from home, one technological glitch was the requirement for an updated version of Netscape. The Webulators were written with an interpreted language (Javascript) and therefore required a web browser with interpretive capabilities in order to run the ``client side'' functions appropriately. As such, either Netscape 3.0 or Netscape Gold [on a ``Macintosh'' computer] was required for optimal function. Attempting to run the Webulators on other web-browsers, such as ``Mosaic'' or ``Microsoft Internet Explorer'' led to frustrations due to lack of functionality. Participants also commented on the lack of experience among the teaching assistants. Since the weekly assignments were new, individuals designated to supervise the lab sessions had little experience with the webulators and should have been better informed about the function of the web-based calculators as well as the speci®c expectations of each assignment Participants noted that some of the web-based lab assignments lacked explicit instructions about what was expected to complete that assignment. ``There wasn't a lot of instruction on the actual Ð on the internet; like how when you have labs Ðlike if I was doing it at home, I wasn't always absolutely clear on exactly what to do . . . . sometimes I would just slug through them and try and ®gure out what was being asked . . .'' (Sd) `` . . . with the instructions Ðthere wasn't a lot. You didn't know exactly what to do for the labs.'' (Sd) The comfort students had with the learning environment is discussed by focus group participants who felt compelled to attend every lecture: ``I thought it was a course that you felt that you had to be there to do a lot. There was a lot of motivation to be in class. I'm not a very good school person when it comes right down to it . . . . It's not such a big deal, but I felt that you had to be in class and
WEB-BASED LEARNING
99
everything learned was kind of new to me. I liked that. It seemed like a motivation to go to class, go to lecture.'' (Se) ``I really enjoyed the course . . . . I felt motivated to go to my class . . . . Ð out of all of them, I probably only missed one. I felt that I needed to be there to get all the information.'' (Sd) Unlike the previous course, students were more computer literate, with a lower spread of differences in foundation knowledge among students. This could be attributed to the stricter adherence to ensuring students met the course prerequisites. Student comfort with the material was clear; the focus group participants mentioned that they didn't feel challenged when using the webulators in some lab assignments. Focus group participants indicated that the webulators may have done too much of the work for the student learner: ``I thought the labs didn't provide a good opportunity to test the knowledge and accuracy of what the student was learning . . .. I thought the webulator was too easy in that you could do the assignment without thinking through the problem. But, to put the numbers in the spaces, just click on a button and have the answer produced for youÐ it was really handy and it was something that would be really good to have access to if you were doing research, but for a student learner, the computer does a lot of the calculations for you.'' (Sa) ``With the webulator Ðinstead of just clicking the numbers all the time, it might have been helpful to do at least one by hand.'' (Sd) Many participants mentioned that although the labs were simple, they were overly time consuming due to the amount of number punching required: ``I thought the internet was too much just punching in numbers Ð not even thinking. I think that you didn't need to actually think about the certain topics when you were doing the lab. You just had to punch in numbers.'' (Sc) Students suggested that a ``cut and paste'' (Se) feature be incorporated in order to more ef®ciently use the webulator. This presents a challenge for future development of electronic curriculum speci®c to this course; to make assignments more complex, allowing students to better grasp the concepts) communicated. In addition to appreciating the fact that the lab assignments were worth 50 percent of the course grade, students liked the practicality of the skills learned: ``I thought it was good because it forced me to use it [the Internet]. After that course I use it all the time.'' (Sc) ``Now that I know how to, I feel con®dent with it [Internet]. I'll be able to use it for other courses.'' (Sd)
100
MONTELPARE AND WILLIAMS
``From the material . . . taught in class, like chi squares and all that sort of thing ÐI have a better understanding about it if I just did a research paper and read it now. They're talking about certain things. I looked at the graph and said what exactly happened, or sometimes I just kind of skip that part and go right to the conclusion. So that makes the information applicable to all of my courses.'' (Se) Conclusion Many lessons can be learned from the course experiences presented here. The instructor continued to develop the uses of the Internet throughout the academic term, and as such changed the objectives of the presentations and the expectations of the learners. The introduction to and use of the Internet in the undergraduate curriculum is an emerging approach to the presentation of information. The following is a list of recommendations based on the experiences presented in this paper for instructors wishing to incorporate the Internet into the undergraduate curriculum: 1. uphold prerequisites for student enrollment to maintain a similar competency with course material and skills; 2. maintain a level of ¯exibility in course material to better meet all learning abilities, experience, and knowledge; work towards ®nding a medium between assignments and expectations being too dif®cult and too easy to be sure all students are challenged; 3. accept that technical problems Ðfrom lab accessibility to software upgrades Ð will be ongoing; work to prevent problems before they occur by having back-up plans in place; 4. incorporating electronic curriculum into the classroom is much like presenting the course for the ®rst time; be sure that all members of the course delivery team are involved, including technical support staff, teaching assistants, and peer counselors. 5. instructors must be well organized, prepared, and ready to deal with the unexpected. References Blake, V. P. (1996) The Virtual library impacts the school library media center: a bibliographic essay. In Kuhlthau, C.C. Goodin, M.E. and McNally, M.J. (eds.) The Virtual School Library: Gateway to the Information Superhighway, pp. 3±18. Englewood, California: Libraries Unlimited Inc. Crane, M. (1996) Intermedia synergy expands communications, Linkages: Institute for Distance Education, University of Maryland, 5(1), p. 2. Crosby, M. E. and Stelovksy, J. (1995) From multimedia instruction to multimedia evaluation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(2=3), pp. 147±162. Davis, J. R. (1995) Re-engineering teaching for 21st century learning, Educational Record, (Fall), pp. 16±22. Eliot, T. S. (1962) Choruses from ``The Rock''. The complete poems and plays 1909±1950. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., pp. 96±97. Flake, J.L. (1996) The world wide web and education. Computers in the schools, 12(1=2), pp. 89±100. Lass, H. (1996) Global education and the Internet: the world at our ®ngertips. ORBIT, 27(2), pp. 50±51. Muldner, T. Muldner, K. and Van Neen, C.M. (1997) Experience from the design of an authoring environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(1), pp. 115±132.
WEB-BASED LEARNING
101
Maddux, C.D. LaMont-Johnson, D. (1997) The World Wide Web: history, cultural context, and a manual for developers of educational information-based web sites. Educational Technology, September±October, pp. 5±12. Najar, L. (1996) Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(2), pp. 129±150. Popham, W.J. (1981) Modern Educational Measurement, pp. 329±330. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall. Summers, J. (1996) Using the Internet to enhance teaching and learning, In Kuhlthau, C.C. Goodin, M.E. and McNally, M.J. (eds.) The Virtual School Library: Gateway to the Information Superhighway, pp. 21±27. Englewood, California: Libraries Unlimited Inc. Winn, W. (1997) Learning in hyperspace. Keynote address at the 3rd Annual Professional Development Workshop, ``The Potential of the Web''. Sponsored by the International University Consortium, University of Maryland System Institute for Distance Education, College Park, Maryland. Yang, S.C. (1996) A dynamic reading-linking-to-writing model for problem solving within a constructive hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3=4), pp. 283±302. Yaverbaum, G.J. Kulkarni, M. Wood, C. (1997) Multimedia projection: an exploratory study of student perceptions regarding interest, organization, and clarity. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 6(2), pp. 139±154.
