H-Net about    search    site map    people    donate    contact    help
navbar
Discussion Networks Reviews Job Guide Announcements

AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Student Success at Web Work
Joseph C. Fitzharris
University of St. Thomas

Anyone who attended an EDUCOM or EDUCAUSE conference, or a "Syllabus1999" conference, is aware of the range of uses computers are put to in higher education. Distance learning ideas percolate through administrations like "visions of sugar plums," while their faculties awake shrieking. The World Wide Web is both one piece of this puzzle - as synonym for content, and the vehicle for its delivery into our classrooms and nightmares. What can the Web do for students, and how well? Is the venture worth the cost?

In Judith Boettcher's terms, my courses are "web-enhanced" and becoming "web-centric." [2] A "web-enhanced course" uses the web to distribute course materials and provide student's resources online. A "web-centric course makes significant use of Web technology to facilitate access to class materials and support communications" between students, teacher, and resources. The virtual classroom replaces the physical classroom as the communications center of the course. My two sections of HIST 113, "Early America in Global Perspective," fit the web-centric model to a point. I have not made the full journey for a number of reasons, mostly because of the determination that doing the full distance is not yet worth the investment.

We will first examine my two sections, to determine how they use the web. In the process, the various web-related methods and tools used in the course will be discussed. Some of these ways are web-enhancing rather than web-centric. Others are more like the web-centric model. As appropriate, student reactions, drawn from two separate surveys of opinion [3], will be used to measure outcomes or values. We conclude with preliminary findings of the effectiveness of various web tools.

My two sections of "Early America in Global Perspective" enrolled forty and thirty students respectively. The larger section was equally divided between lower (freshmen and sophomores) and upper (juniors and seniors) classmen of both genders. The smaller section had more lower classmen. These mixes of students appear to have had no affect on the responses. Upper classmen were willing to work so long as they understood the "why" of things. Lower classmen needed more tending and the freshmen were particularly prone to accept things as "the way it is."

The University's undergraduate College completed a curriculum review process about five years ago and introduced only a few significant changes. One, done with great happiness on the part of the "concerned" and the "politically correct," was a change in the general requirement in history. The new historical studies requirement mandates excessive amounts of multicultural, global, and diversity coverage in the four meeting the requirement. The two original America surveys, were traditional courses that were multiculturally aware, taught within appropriate global context, and so on. This was insufficient and we lacked the votes to prevent the deed.

As a result, my department faces the ongoing task of meeting the traditional expectations of the profession in content and method, while meeting the mandate of our faculty for excessive indulgences. Worse, the semester had shrunk to fourteen class weeks. At the same time the curriculum shifted requirements, we shifted schedules. Instead of four fifty minute classes per course per week, we moved to three sixty-five minute classes per week. While the minutes stayed almost the same, the number of meetings was reduced, reducing the topics covered by twenty-five percent.

Each of the Americanists has adopted different responses to this conundrum of too much to do in too little time. My response was to use the web as a way to leverage our class contact time. I tried simple web pages and e-mail. E-mail is the greatest thing since chalk. Simple web pages were not quite so useful. I added an online discussion using Web Crossing. Through no fault of the software, this did not work.

As a member of the University's Web Campus (and predecessor) committees, I had a hand in the adoption of authoring programs for the new online courses and course components. After some experimentation, we settled on WebCT, Web Crossing, and a couple of other programs. My current work depended on WebCT.

The online or web context for this course is the larger Web Campus initiative now underway. We are building a virtual campus that parallels our physical campus. Each class has a room, each instructor and office - home pages in both cases. When an instructor opens a web component using one of the approved tools, a live link is created on her home page. When a student registers for a course section, a live link to the course page is created on his home page. These pages are contained inside our library, business office, bookstore, and other online offices and functions.

Since I was using Tindall and Shi, America: A Narrative History, and WebCT is our prime authoring tool of choice, I adopted Norton's web site. A number of local pages and features were included in these primarily web-enhanced courses. How did the students react? Were these tools effective in accomplishing my goals of moving content and skill instruction and resources out of class into areas and times that were student-controlled? Did they come? Did they learn?

`Our section home page is based in WebCT. Since I am using Tindall and Shi, America: A Narrative History, we bought the W. W. Norton WebCT site download. Norton provided us with content, keyed to each chapter in the textbook, with an additional number of topic links to complement these. The other key feature is the quiz module, with all chapter question databases already for use. The rest of the site is essentially the standard WebCT format.

I readily admit that Paula Petrik's criticism of the chapter and topic pages has validity. [4] In many cases, the reference link produces a picture, map, or document, without annotation beyond provenance. While she finds this a shirking of duty by the "content provider" and publisher, I rather appreciate it. Since I first had students in these classes doing local history research papers (1975-1976), I have practiced learning by immersion off the diving board. After introducing the appropriate methodologies, I would expect students to take unexplained photographs, as an example, from the "American Memory Project" at the Library of Congress, and use them with increasing skill as the term progressed.

WebCT offers a Bulletin Board module that threads a discussion as long as users reply to messages. It uses a main forum and instructor-created sub-forums. The author of the new message either selects the subsidiary forum or the instructor has to move the message. I found this to be cumbersome compared to Web Crossing's folder metaphor.

The gradebook feature is very nice. As soon as a quiz is completed, the score is posted to the gradebook. If the instructor has properly adjusted the settings of the quiz and the gradebook, the results will be displayed to the student. Exams, essays, assignments, and other scores and grades can be manually entered, either several for a single student one score for many students. The tool does have a "points possible" feature that can be confusing if official points possible do not include extra credit or similar items. Also, it is either difficult or impossible to have scores for only, say, the first ten of seventeen chapter quizzes recorded for grading.

There are other features but these are the key items provided by Norton and WebCT. I do not find WebCT's internal e-mail system useful. I prefer to use the University's e-mail system, Outlook-based though it is, than to have two or more e-mail systems. There are enough troubles getting students to check their e-mail regularly. A second system complicates their lives, and mine too.

I went beyond this core of features and content. My additions were a set of syllabus pages, which were summarized in the hard copy syllabus distributed on the first day of class. All classes, related links to resources, both Norton and external links, due dates for term essays, quiz availability, and so on, were noted on an assignments page. The general questions and instructions for writing the term essay, the conditions for revision, and some online resources were provided.[5]

Essay examination question pools and sample answers after the exams were both online. I put support pages for some "pre-teaching" class assignments and several web assignments online. Online class materials included materials drawn from web sites and used in class as overhead transparencies.

The physical classroom was the core communication hub of the course. This is the primary reason the course is not a "web-centric" course. I firmly believe in personal communication and try to get to know my students as individuals. E-mail interaction helps me do this, but I would not wish to depend solely upon electronics for interaction with my students.

In class, we conducted our affairs in a fairly traditional fashion. They read and then came with questions, and I lectured or asked questions. My classroom had no computer projection equipment so we retrogressed to old technology - chalk and overheads. Some days were prefaced with either short pre-teaching assignments or more substantial reading with a guiding question and required written response.

The surveys ask opinions. Many of the responses are ordered from one extreme to another. Ordinal and nominal data is susceptible of descriptive analysis (mode, frequency, range) but is not properly subjected to further analysis (for example, the calculation of either a mean or a "student's-t coefficient." We are unable to statistically do much; even correlation is beyond our reach. While we have some a priori notions of relationships, we cannot test them. Nor can we test hypothesized values against the reality of the survey data.

The discussion parallels the earlier material, proceeding from the Norton chapter material and quizzes through WebCT's features, to some of my pages, which may be of interest. We conclude by examining the possible impact of web components on course workload, and the student opinions of the effectiveness of the WebCT site as a teaching and learning resource.

W. W. Norton and Co. provided chapter materials, outlines, suggested student presentation topics, other links. Over half (51%) either did not use them or found them not useful. The majority of A students agreed. The project pages from the chapters were assembled, with other pages, in a separate entry. I made a separate icon on the course page to encourage their use. They were ignored by 73% of the students. I took the project pages I think that if these links were used in my pre-teaching assignments, or if my students were required to build web-presentations for the class, their assessments would be quite different.

Norton also provided the quiz question databases for each chapter. While a few questions were mis-identified, the error rate was quite low. I required that students complete any ten of the seventeen chapters (the course ends with the War of the Rebellion). Each quiz was available for about 48 hours and each student could try a quiz only once. A number of students were confused by the need to save each answer, and by the timing factor - I told them they had fifteen minutes but the module allowed them to continue and marked their quiz record. The vast majority of students (85%) like online quizzes at their convenience. A number did not like the questions, which were not susceptible to memorization. A few students (15%) wanted paper quizzes in class. The quizzes were intended to provide a guide to when to read what, an incentive to read in a timely fashion, and to provide a measure of their learning and retention. The quizzes achieved these objectives for all but 13% of students. Half agreed that the quizzes enhanced their reading and retention, while 40% disagreed.

The Bulletin Board tool in WebCT is, after some consideration, poorly designed and implemented. The students overwhelmingly (60%) thought it was not worth the effort - at the best. Only 9% found it of real value. Their attitude towards the bulletin board requirement likely colors this somewhat. I required two substantive (on the topic, not on quizzes or social life) postings per week and provided a "seed" question periodically. They knew I was lurking and observing but normally not participating in the discussions. For 51% of students, the postings and discussions on the bulletin board did not enhance their understanding of the material of the course. A fourth of the students agreed that it did enhance their understanding a bit. [6]

WebCT's calendar was used to remind students of the due dates for essays, opportunities to take quizzes, and so on. A plurality (36%) found it helpful on occasion, but only 33% found it very helpful and 31% either found it not helpful or did not use it at all.

WebCT offers a gradebook utility, which is handy. While there are features, such as "graders", that I do not use, by and large it works well. Quiz scores are automatically posted. All other entries are done manually. The students can retrieve information quite easily. I encourage them to keep their assignments and check the gradebook regularly to ensure accuracy. It also means that they have an ongoing sense of where they are at in the course. Students appreciate this tool and find it helpful (87%), and they used this information to initiate remedial action as necessary (63%).

The syllabus pages and daily assignments page were the "bible" of course requirements. To reduce the amount of paper given out the first day, I provided the full syllabus online and a summary in paper, and made sure the students understood this arrangement. Taking a positive approach to the questions, 87% valued the syllabus pages and 73% the assignment pages. Obviously, the others must have saved and used their paper copies. On the daily assignment page, I had a number of links to web resources. About 80% of the students found these links useful at one point or another.

The pages created for each of a number of classes contained an outline and links to additional web resources. At the midterm survey, I asked if these were useful. When only 18% said they were helpful, with most saying either only sometimes (35%) or not (22%) helpful and 25% admitting they did not use the pages, I stopped creating them. The time investment was too great for the reported return. This was a bit frustrating since all the literature suggests that this kind of thing would be useful. A similar result was obtained with the pages for pre-teaching assignments when 40% reported not using them at all and only 32% valued them.

Course features received mixed reviews. Some of the results are produced by my particular course organization. I did not use the chapter support materials provided by Norton. Admittedly, this was due to not having access to the contents until August, prior to a research trip east. The time to integrate these links into my own course was not there. My own opinion of these resource links is that they offer the instructor and students a good set of documents and images to work with.

Although heavily influenced by my course requirements, which differ from those of my colleagues, the question of the impact of web-enhancement on student workload is important. We need to realize that most students, despite sizeable amounts of financial aid - some 75% of my students have financial aid, actually need to work to pay some of their bills. Admittedly too much money goes to incidentals like CDs or prohibited beverages, but I doubt many of their faculty could claim purity. They have the added habit, a deplorable one, of taking more than just my course. My colleagues in other disciplines would prefer I not use more than my "fair share" of student time.

At midterm, I asked them to compare the "workload in this course which uses WebCT as a course component to other courses without web components. Fifty-three percent (53%) reported the course demanded more work and the excess was "in the web component." However, 27% said it "is in the traditional (classroom, books) components." Only 15% said the workload was about the same, and a mere 4% said the workload was less.

As a result, at the end of term, I asked them first if the workload was excessive "relative to all other courses" and 55% said it was. Only 5% said it was less than average. I asked if the workload was excessive "relative to all other courses with web components" and 53% reported it was, 25% said it was about the same, and 10% reported it below average. They then were asked about the workload "relative to all other courses lacking web components" (traditional courses), and 44% reported the workload greater in my course, but 47% reported it to be about the same. Only 7% said the workload was less than traditional courses.

Ideally, we would isolate the effect of the web component in these courses. I asked them if the workload in the course was:

"too much - due to the web component" 47%
"too much - due to the non-web components" 10%
"no different from other courses" 40%
"too little - the shortage came in the non-web…" 0%
"too little - the shortage came in the web…" 0%

This clearly indicates that the web component can increase the demands on students. Of course, one of my objectives in turning to the web was to move excess content out of the classroom and into their time by putting materials on the web. This suggests that I was successful.

If the web imposes additional demands on their time, and allows us to move materials into their time, how effective is the web? At midterm I asked them to assess "whether using WebCT as a course component is an effective way to learn American History." Combining effective and very effective, 37% said WebCT worked. Another 33% said it was as effective as a traditional course. On the other side, 25% found it not very effective, and 4% said it was "a very ineffective way to learn American History."

At the end of term, I should have used the same question again. Instead, I asked different questions, drawn from a University of Missouri survey. Their response to "the site was valuable and improved my learning experience" was agreement by 43%, and disagreement by 14%. When asked to respond to "I am very satisfied with my overall experience of the WebCT course components," 47% agreed, 27% disagreed, and 23% were "neutral."

Given my course organization, the opinion of the students regarding the chapter supplements provided by Norton are not surprising. Online quizzes are very appreciated by students since they can take the quiz when they feel ready and at a time and place of their choosing. It also frees up class time and the thing is immediately scored. My students did not like WebCT's Bulletin Board feature, and their opinion of bulletin board discussions was not good. This component needs reconsideration and a better tool. The Calendar feature was of marginal value. The Gradebook is a great feature for both students and instructor.

An online syllabus is necessary if you have even a minimal "web-presence" course. In a "web-enhanced" course, it is essential. Having an online list of all major assignments and due dates, all quiz dates, and so on is enormously valuable. The students did not value the class support and pre-teaching assignment pages. This suggests that trying a different approach with more material actually on site and a clearer rationale. I find that when students understand why you are doing something a particular way, they will try it and respond honestly.

For the average student, the web component added a significant amount of work to the course. Since I did not allow the use of web resources in their term essays, they had the same kind of major written assignment found in traditional courses. This might have inflated the numbers thinking the workload about comparable with other traditional courses. And it is possible that the few who thought the workload "less than average" were seniors.

In all, the web was effective as a teaching and learning tool. It does not appear to have a large "edge" on the traditional methods at this point, but the results are suggestive. How much of their dissatisfaction is due to broken links, unresponsive servers, and other technical problems is unclear. What is clear is that we have another set of tools to use to enhance our courses. I am quite unsure if Boettcher's "web-centric" course is workable. Certainly, at this point, I am too traditional in my mindset. I want "real time, real world" contact with my students on a regular basis. The virtual classroom is not enough.

Midterm Survey Form (partial)

Question 1 Using your normal computer (in lab, dorm, at home), how easy/hard was it to access course materials in WebCT?
1. easy 2. usually easy, just a few problems with servers or my computer. 3 moderately difficult, my computer was the problem 4. moderately difficult, the server was the problem 5. very difficult

Question 2 Please rate the Bulletin Board tool as a course component.
1. The Bulletin Board discussion with other students helped me to see additional sides to the issues discussed. 2. The Bulletin Board tool was helpful, but needed more instructor guidance. 3. The Bulletin Board tool was sometimes helpful, but was not worth the effort. 4. The Bulletin Board tool was not useful. 5. I did not use the bulletin board.

Question 3 Assignment Page
1. The Assignment Page was very helpful. 2. The Assignment Page was sometimes helpful. 3. The Assignment Page was not helpful. 4. I did not use the Assignment Page.

Question 4 Please assess the Class Page
1. The Class Page was very helpful. 2. The Class Page was sometimes helpful. 3. The Class Page was not helpful. 4. I did not use the Class Page.

Question 6 Please assess the category of materials contained under "Tindall Content" which accessed chapter outlines, project ideas, etc.
1. This was very useful and helpful. 2. This was moderately useful and helpful. 3. It was sometimes useful and helpful. 4. I did not find it useful or helpful. 5. I did not use this material.

Question 7 Please assess the syllabus and requirements page and its related links to grading, essays (and topics and requirements), etc
1. The syllabus and requirements page is very helpful. 2. The syllabus and requirements page was helpful up through the essay and mid-term but not after that. 3. The syllabus and requirements page was helpful for the first couple of weeks but not after that. 4. The syllabus and requirements page was not helpful at any point. 5. I never used the syllabus and 7,( requirements page.

Question 8 Please assess the Calendar Page
1. The Calendar Page was very helpful. I used it frequently. 2. The Calendar Page was very helpful but I used it only once in a while. 3. The Calendar Page was helpful when I needed it. 4. The Calendar Page was not helpful. 5. I never used the Calendar Page

Question 5 How do you normally access WebCT for this class?
1. Using a computer in one of the labs 2. Using a computer in my dorm lab 3. Using my computer in my dorm room (or your roommate's) 4. Using my computer at home 5. Using a computer at work

Question 9 Please assess the Online Quizzes.
1. The Online Quizzes were very useful. This is a very good way to take quizzes. 2. The Online Quizzes were very useful, but the forAnat needs change. 3. The Online Quizzes were useful, about like paper quizzes. 4. The Online Quizzes-were not useful. I'd prefer paper quizzes in class. 5. I did not do the quizzes.

Question 10 Please assess Richard's Projects page.
1. Richard's Project page-was very helpful. I got ideas for assignments, exam studying, and/or the essay there. 2. Richard's Project page was very helpful. 3. Richard's Project page was helpful. 4. Richard's Project page was not helpful. 5. I did not use Richard's Peoject page.

Question 11 Please assess the Sample Exam Answers pages.
1. The Sample Exam Answers pages were very helpful. They enabled me to better understand the strong and weak points in m answers, and how to do better on the next exam. 2. The Sample Exam Answers pages were very helpful. They enabled me to better | understand the strong and weak points in my, answers. 3. The Sample Exam Answers pages were quite helplful. 4. The Sample Exam Answers pages were not helplful. 5. I did not use the Sample Exam Answers . pages.

Question 12 Please assess the "Assignments page" which listed daily class "pre-teaching" assignments.
1.The "Assignments page was very helpful,.I checked it I missed class to see if there was an assignment due. 2. The " Assignments page was very helpful but I never missed a class where an assignment was made. 3. The " Assignments page was nothelpful because I never missed a class where / an assignment was made. 4. The " Assignments page was not helpful. 5. I never used the " Assignments" page.

Question 13 Please assess the "View Your Marks and Records" (Gradebook) page.
1. The Gradebook was very helplful,. I checked after each assignment, exam, and essay. It helped me figure out where I was at and how I was doing. 2. The Gradebook was very helplful. I checked it at mid-term and before the final ( exam. It helped me figure out where I was at and how I was doing. 3. The Gradebook was helpful since I could tell what quizzes I took and whether my assignment was graded or just recorded. 4. The Gradebook was not helpful. I kept my ~l own record and didn't want to see the gradebook. ; S. I never used the gradebook.

Question 15 I enjoyed using WebCT as part of this course.
1. I strongly agree. 2. I agree. 3. Neither agree not disagree. 4. I disagree. 5. I strongly disagree.

Question 16 How did you learn WebCT?
1. I learned WebCt using an online selfstudy guide 2. I learned WebCt using Quick reference guides 3. I learned WebCt from my classmates 4. I learned WebCt using a workshop on using WebCT. 5. None of the Above.

Question 17 WebCt was easy to learn.
1. I strongly agree. 2. I agree. 3. Neither agree nor disagree. 4. I disagree. 5. I strongly disagree.

Question 18 Please assess the effectiveness of the online quizzes in stimulating you to read, and in helping you assess your comprehension and retention of the material.
1. The online quizzes were very effective in keeping me reading on time, and helped me measure my comprehension and retention. 2. The online quizzes were very effective in keeping me reading on time, but I did not think they were fair measures of either comprehension or retention. 3. The online quizzes were somewhat effective in keeping me reading on time. 4. The online quizzes were rarely effective in keeping me reading on time 5. The online quizzes had no effect on my reading on time. 6. I never took the online quizzes.

Question 19 On the Assignment Page a number of course topics had web-links to other resources. Please assess how useful these links were.
1. The course topics links were very useful. 2. The course topics links were often useful. 3. The course topics links were useful on occasion 4. The course topics links were not useful. 5. I never used the course topics links.

Question 20 Please assess how effective the Course Topics Links were in helping you learn more about a topic.
1. he course topics links were very helpful to me in learning more about many topics. 2. The course topics links were very helpful to me in learning more about some topics. 3. The course topics links were not very helpful to me in learning more about various topics. 4. The course topics links were not helpful to me in learning more about the various topics. 5. I never used the course topics links.

Question 21 Please compare your workload in this course which uses WebCT as a course component to other courses without web components.
1. This course demands far more work, and most of the difference is in the web component. 2. This course demands far more work, and most of the difference is in traditional (classroom, books) components. 3. This course demands about the same amount of work. 4. This course demands less work, and most of the difference is in the traditional (classroom and books) component 5. This course demands less work, and most of the difference is in the component.

Question 22 Please assess whether using WebCT as a course component is an effective way to learn American History.
1. WebCT as a course component is a very effective way to learn American History. 2. WebCT as a course component is an effective way to learn American History. 3. WebCT as a course component is as effective a way to learn American History as a traditional course would be. 4. WebCT as a course component is not very effective as a way to learn American History. 5. WebCT as a course component is a very ineffective way to learn American History.

Question 23 About how many times a week did you access the web pages?
1. Once a week 2. 2-3 times a week 3. 3-5 times a week 4. 5-10 times a week 5. more than 10 times a week.

Question 24 Pleaseindicate your mid-term grade:
1. Failing 2. In the D range 3. In the C range 4. In the B range 5. In the A range

End of Term Survey Form (partial):
The following questions focus on the WebCT course delivery system and course component: I found this WebCT based course preferable to other web based course sites I've used.
1) strongly agree 2) agree somewhat 3) neutral 4) disagree somewhat 5) disagree strongly

The WebCT class site was valuable and improved my learning experience:
1) strongly agree 2) agree somewhat 3) neutral 4) disagree somewhat 5) disagree strongly

Access to my grade information and performance measures (e.g. quizzes) prompted me to take action (such as visiting my instructor or the tutor and/or attending a help session):
1) strongly agree 2) agree somewhat 3) neutral 4) disagree somewhat 5) disagree strongly

In general, I am very satisfied with my overall experience of the WebCT course components:
1) strongly agree 2) agree somewhat 3) neutral 4) disagree somewhat 5) disagree strongly

My reading and retention of material in Tindall was enhanced by the online quizzes:
1) strongly agree 2) agree somewhat 3) neutral 4) disagree somewhat 5) disagree strongly

The bulletin board postings and discussion enhanced my understanding of the material:
1) strongly agree 2) agree somewhat 3) neutral 4) disagree somewhat 5) disagree strongly

Please answer the following questions about workload demands in this course: The workload in this course was, relative to all other courses you are taking:
1) quite excessive 2) excessive 3) about the same 4) less than average 5) way less than average

The workload in this course was, relative to all other courses with web components that you are taking:
1) quite excessive 2) excessive 3) about the same 4) less than average 5) way less than average

The workload in this course was, relative to all other courses lacking web components that you are taking:
1) quite excessive 2) excessive 3) about the same 4) less than average 5) way less than average

The workload in this course was:
1) too much - due to the web component
2) too much - due to the non-web components
3) no different from other courses
4) too little - the shortage came in the non-web components
5) too little - the shortage came in the web components
6)

What grade do you expect for the course - at this point:
1)F 2) D 3) C 4) B 5) A

Notes

[1]. Mr. Fitzharris is Associate Professor in the University of St. Thomas Department of History. A number of colleagues have contributed, indirectly or directly, to this work. Among the are Bernice Folz, Stephen Zvollner, David West, Thomas Velek, Gary Kappel, Alfredo Mycue, Cornel Reinhart, the attendees of the CHC99 conference, John McClymer, and Richard Jensen. An earlier paper, "Using the Web in Undergraduate American History Courses," was presented in the session of the same title at the 6th International Conference on Computers in the History Classroom, 28 June - 3 July 1999, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York.

[2]. Judith Boettcher, "Another Look at the Tower of WWWebble," Syllabus, 13:3 (October 1999):52.

[3]. Richard Jensen developed the first survey, comparable to one used for the CHC presentation. It was administered in mid-October after mid-term grades were available. The second survey was administered during the last week of class. It incorporated questions from the University of Missouri and my previous end of term assessment form. The second survey was done immediately before the mandatory course evaluation, which uses approved institutional questions.

[4]. Paula Petrik, "Net Survey: Looking at a Textbook Site - the Norton Example," History Computer Review, 15:2 (Fall 1999): 45-56.

[5] I absolutely forbade using web resources, except graphics, and then only with appropriate citation. They had to use the library and traditional sources in their term essays. A few honest sols carefully included their web text sources in their (required) bibliographies and flunked. A few others eliminated the bibliography to hide their web usage and flunked. Many students revised their essays and discovered libraries.

[6] Their responses are consistent with my findings in the Spring of 1999. See John Ottenhoff and David Lawrence, "Ten Paradoxical Truths about Conference Software in the Classroom," Syllabus 13:3 (October 1999): 54, 56-57, especially their point about student attitudes (number 6 on p. 56).

H-Net
Humanities & Social Sciences OnLine
Humanities &
Social Sciences Online
in cooperation with MSU Department of History
Contact Us
Copyright © 1995-2007