E-mail comments to the Editor

Download the complete PDF of this issue

Editor's Note: The debate comparing values of face-to-face vs. online comunication continues. One element is the loss of visual cues that enable teachers to more accurately focus communication. Another relates to possible miscommunication when the contextual cues are not present. A third relates to careless communication practices that violate privacy or unintentionally hurt peoples feelings. Dereshiwsky, Moan and Gahungu identify instructor perceptions of civility and instructional communication, and seeks to identify underlying variables associated to differences of opinion.

Faculty Perceptions Regarding Issues of Civility in Online Instructional Communication

Mary I. Dereshiwsky, Eugene R. Moan and Athanase Gahungu

Introduction

“The medium is the message.” Marshall McLuhan’s classic quotation serves as an appropriate metaphor for the challenges of communication faced in different teaching environments. The advent of Web-based and Web-enhanced teaching has been accompanied by concerns about potential misinterpretations of the written word. Without visual and other body language cues, is it possible to accidentally misconstrue good-natured humor as a hostile personal attack, for instance? Can disagreement on issues more easily escalate into flame wars? Is it possible to share private concerns effectively with one’s instructor and/or fellow students if the only means of doing so is an e-mail message? Perhaps most significantly: are there special challenges regarding issues of civility in online instructional communication of which instructors and students need to be aware, and for which they need to be carefully prepared?

Electronic communications have undoubtedly become a commodity in the educational setting. Yet these contemporary media of communication, including e-mail, Internet, World Wide Web page construction and maintenance, electronic mailing lists, Telnet, uploading and unloading files, are emerging fields in which usage competencies and civility procedures are often limited or sparingly understood (Shea, 1994). Despite the existence of comprehensive guidelines such as Arlene Rinaldi’s (1998) “The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette”  (http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/) researchers hypothesized that students and the community at-large often lacked skills not only in drafting electronic messages (Phan and Thoms, 1997), but in all aspects of common courtesy. Of special concern is the fact that a number of users tend to resort to electronic communications to “avoid face-to-face meetings on tough issues” (Barclay and York, 1999). Others are unaware of the public character of electronic communicating via computer networks, or they may engage in other unethical conducts due to their own lack of awareness of any underlying impropriety. That is why Rinaldi’s (1998) work cautioned users about their responsibilities, and in addition it strongly advised them against common practices of forwarding e-mail without other parties’ consent, sending chain mail, or not following proper Web-based communication procedures.

Of special mention were the following guidelines:

• Never assume that your e-mail can be read by no one except yourself; others may be able to read or access your mail. Never send or keep anything that you would mind seeing on the evening news.
• Never send chain letters through the Internet. Sending them can cause the loss of your Internet access.
• Follow the appropriate chain of command procedures for corresponding with superiors. For example, don't send a complaint via e-mail directly to the "top" just because you can.
• Be professional and careful what you say about others. E-mail is easily forwarded.
• Cite all quotes, references and sources and respect copyright and license agreements.
• It is considered extremely rude to forward personal email to mailing lists or Usenet without the original author's permission.

In order to make electronic communications an effective teaching tool in schools and a useful resource in the work place, other researchers stressed staff development as the key to technological change.  Thus Johnson (1999) developed basic and advanced computer literacy rubrics for training classroom teachers and media specialists in the skillful and purposeful use of Internet. Johnson’s rubrics comprised 1) Internet basics, 2) e-mails and electronic mailing lists, 3) the world wide web, 4) search tools, 5) newsgroups, gophers and Telnet, 6) obtaining, decompressing, and using files, 7) real-time and push technologies, 8) web page construction, 9) learning opportunities using the Internet, and 10) netiquette, on-line ethics, and current issues surrounding Internet use in K-12 schools.

Similarly, Anderson (1998) recommended that it was urgent that staff be introduced to skills in Internet use that many did not know they needed. According to Anderson, today’s students are the true first digital generation. Teachers must be adequately prepared to better provide these digital age students with relevant learning opportunities. Finally, as Perks (1997) cautioned, the key to maximizing the potential that Internet presents and bringing technological change in education and in contemporary life, in general, lies in instituting Internet-acceptable use policies in schools and campuses.

Purpose of the Study

The researchers sought to identify instructor perceptions regarding various issues of civility in online instructional communication. In cases of instructor disagreement on such issues, the researchers sought to identify some potential underlying variables or factors related to online instruction that appeared to be associated to differences of opinion.

Methods and Procedures

The researchers developed a survey containing a number of fixed-choice statements concerning issues of communication in online instruction. These included such issues as whether the same standards of courteous communication should apply regardless of classroom format (traditional face-to-face, Web-based or interactive television-based), whether students engaged in flame wars (angry online exchanges) where the instructor had to intervene, whether subjects perceived enthusiasm to be more difficult to convey in the online interactive environment, and whether the lack of visual and body language cues in Web-based instruction makes it more difficult for instructors to get a ‘read’ of their students. Respondents were also asked to check off which forms of online communication they routinely used with their students, such as student-instructor e-mail, subscriptions to Internet-based listservs, and special class listservs. In addition, the survey included a number of more general fixed-choice statements regarding online teaching and learning. These statements had to do with such issues as whether students expressed missing the face-to-face classroom, whether instructors felt adequately prepared to teach online, and whether they believed there were certain subject areas that could not be successfully taught online. Demographic information included how long the recipient had been teaching online, how many different online courses he/she had taught to date, and what level(s) of students he/she instructed online: graduate, undergraduate or both. Finally, the last page asked subjects to share three successes and challenges experienced with regard to online communication in their own words. A complete copy of the post-pilot revised survey may be found in Appendix A.

The study sample consisted of all Northern Arizona University instructors who used the asynchronous bulletin board posting area known as the Virtual Conference Center (VCC) for all or some of their instruction for the academic years 1999 – 2001. This list was obtained directly from the NAUOnline VCC Web-based listing. In one case, the instructor had recently converted her online course to WebCT, which is being gradually phased in by  NAUOnline as its preferred asynchronous posting program. The study sample comprised 39 online instructors in total.

Each study subject was e-mailed the survey as a Microsoft Word file in mid-October of 2001. The accompanying e-mail cover note provided assurances of confidentiality and anonymity as per Northern Arizona University’s Institutional Review Board guidelines for research with human subjects. The recipient was asked to word-process his/her survey responses directly onto the file and to return it to Dr. Dereshiwsky as an e-mail file attachment. A follow-up e-mailing was conducted after two weeks with those study subjects who had not yet returned the completed survey. This resulted in a total response from 32 subjects, or 82.05% of the study sample.

Findings and Results

Summary descriptive statistics were computed for each fixed-choice survey item. These statistics consisted of the total number and percent of subjects who selected each response choice per survey item. In addition, the total number and percent of missing values (non-responses) were tallied for each survey item.

Table 1 displays the absolute response frequency for Items 1 through 18 contained in the “Attitudes and Behaviors in Online Communication” section of the survey. The modal (most frequently selected) response category is starred for each item.

Table 1.

Absolute Response Frequencies per Survey Item:
Attitudes and Behaviors in Online Communication

Four survey items yielded bimodal, or approximately bimodal, response distributions. These items are as follows:

• Felt Adequately Prepared to Teach Online (Item 3);
• Standards of Communication Should Be Identical Regardless of Classroom Format (Item 4);
• Easier to Misinterpret Directions Online (Item 13);
• Harder to Express Enthusiasm Online (Item 14).

As a result, the responses for the preceding items were collapsed across the ‘strongly’ and ‘moderately’ agree and disagree choices. These items, along with their absolute and relative response frequencies and related histograms, are illustrated in Figures 1 through 4. (Please note: item subtopics are shown in abbreviated form in these tables. Please refer to Appendix A for the listing of complete items.)

Figure 1.
 Frequency Distribution and Histogram for
Instructor Felt Adequately Prepared for Online Classroom Communication (Item 3)

Figure 2.

Frequency Distribution and Histogram for Standards of Communication Should Be Identical Regardless of Classroom Format (Item 4)

Figure 3.

Frequency Distribution and Histogram for Easier to Misinterpret Directions Online (Item 13)

Figure 4.

Frequency Distribution and Histogram for Harder to Express Enthusiasm Online (Item 14)

In an attempt to account for these apparent splits of opinion, each of the preceding survey items was cross-classified with each of the following items:

• whether it is more challenging to communicate online (Item 1);
• whether the student has expressed missing the face-to-face traditional instructional environment (Item 16);
• whether the lack of visual cues in the online environment makes it more difficult for an instructor to get a ‘read’ of his/her students (Item 17);
• whether it is more tempting to respond with anger to an online message than to communication in the traditional face-to-face classroom (Item 18);
• whether the instructor believes that certain subject matter cannot be effectively taught in the Web-based or Web-enhanced classroom (Item 20);
• the level of student taught (graduate, undergraduate or both).

To facilitate interpretation, the ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ response choices were collapsed across ‘strongly’ and ‘moderately’ levels. Non-responses (missing values) were subsequently omitted from the analysis.

Given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the present study, it was not the researchers’ intention to interpret the resulting chi square statistics in an inferential or hypothesis-testing sense. For purposes of identifying variables that may be related to the splits of attitude depicted in Figures 1 through 4, during the second phase of the analysis the researchers sought to identify all contingency tables whose related chi-square statistic had an associated level of significance of 0.05 or less.

Of the preceding two-way cross-classifications of survey responses, the three pairings shown in Table 2 yielded associated chi square levels of significance of 0.05 or less.

Table 2.

Statistically Significant Cross-Classifications of Survey Responses and Associated Test Statistics (Chi Square and Related Alpha Level)

Table 3.

“Lack of Visual Cues Online” (Item 17)
Cross-Classified by “Subject Matter Counts re Optimal Classroom Format” Item 13)

As shown in Table 3, subjects who felt there is a relative lack of visual cues online also believed that subject matter counts in selecting the optimum classroom format (i.e., traditional face-to-face, Web-based, Web-enhanced, interactive television). This is reflected in the second row and second column of Table 3. However, for those subjects who disagreed with the premise that the online teaching environment lacks visual cues (first row), they were split in their beliefs as to whether subject matter counts in terms of the optimum classroom format (first row, first and second columns, respectively).

Table 4.

“Challenge to Communicate Online” (Item 1)
Cross-Classified by “Easier to Misinterpret Directions Online” (Item 13)

As shown in Table 4, instructors who believed it is more challenging to communicate online also felt that it is easier for online students to misinterpret directions, and vice versa (diagonal items, first two rows).

Table 5.

“Harder to Express Enthusiasm Online” (Item 14)
Cross-Classified by “Challenge to Communicate Online” (Item 1)

Table 5 shows that instructors who felt that it is more challenging to communicate online also believed that it is harder for students to express enthusiasm in the online classroom, and vice versa (diagonal items, first two rows).

Discussion

Table 6 summarizes those areas of online communication where there was relative agreement and/or a predominant direction of opinion by respondents, as well as the areas of remaining controversy (i.e., splits in agreement vis-à-vis disagreement with the corresponding survey item).

Table 6.

Areas of Relative Agreement and Controversy with Respect to Issues of Civility in Online Communication

In addition, an online student is one who may be characterized by the following profile:

• Tends to focus on issues rather than personalities in expressing disagreement online;
• Is not likely to engage in flame wars with other students;
• Sometimes types in all capital letters in e-mail messages and/or online postings;
• Sometimes uses emoticons (online shorthand) appropriately in such communications;
• Sometimes misses the face-to-face classroom environment.

Study results suggest that some civility concerns may be more potential than actual in nature. On the one hand, instructors are more likely to believe that online communication is more challenging and that it is more tempting to respond with anger to an online communication than to a verbal communication. On the other hand, they have rarely had to intervene to stop flame wars. Students have tended to focus on issues when expressing disagreement, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Instructors have also shared that their students tend to be able to express enthusiasm through their online communications. In addition, their students are not shy about participating in instructional interaction in general, nor about sharing private and candid communications with their instructors. These results suggest that such student candor in expressing emotions needs to continue to be positively channeled to prevent misunderstandings in communication.

Online students sometimes type in all capital letters, which implies shouting according to rules of netiquette. At the same time, some students are using emoticons (online symbolism to depict emotions) appropriately. It should not be automatically assumed that typing in all caps is intended to convey anger. For instance, this action could be due to not knowing how to enlarge the font on the screen in order to view one’s typing clearly.

The above-listed areas of controversy regarding online communication, particularly the uncertainty as to whether standards of communication should be identical regardless of classroom format, and whether online instructors felt adequately prepared for the communication issues they faced, may be reflective of two factors:

1. The relative newness of teaching and learning online. Draves (2002) has likened our current state-of-the art Web-based instruction to being at the Model-T stage of the evolution of the automobile. While we have come a long way and continue to make progress, at the same time we still have much to learn about teaching and learning online. Furthermore, with regard to online communication, Draves has stated: “We don’t know how to talk online yet.” Future research might continue this exploratory and descriptive line of inquiry via a needs assessment to identify instructors’ “wish lists” concerning orientation to online instruction; and in particular, what sorts of preparation they would like to have in order to successfully moderate communication within the online classroom.
2. The perceived relationship of specific subject matter taught to the classroom format. The majority of study subjects felt strongly that not every subject area can be taught successfully in the Web-based format and that some subject areas were more suited to the traditional face-to-face classroom environment. In the second phase of the quantitative analysis, subject matter appeared to be a more robust explanatory variable than level taught (graduate, undergraduate, or both). The current study sample spanned a variety of individual subject matter areas. This may also account for some online students sharing with their instructors that they missed the traditional face-to-face classroom setting. Future research should attempt to identify the optimal match of individual instructional topics to the classroom format (i.e., traditional group face-to-face; Web-based; Web-enhanced; interactive television based). A potential starting point for such a line of research might be to test Draves’ hypothesis that 21^st century instruction will consist of a blend of 20% all-online, 20% in-person and 60% mixed-mode interaction (2002).

Additional research should identify the perspectives of the other key stakeholder group that is partner to the online communication: namely, the students. What differences, if any, exist between students’ perceptions of issues of civility in online communication and those of their instructors? Finally, the reasons behind both instructor and teacher perceptions should be explored in depth via qualitative data collection procedures, whether through open-ended survey questions, individual interviews, or group interviews with both instructors and students. This methodology would elicit subjects’ first-person accounts—their ‘stories’ of their experiences with online teaching and learning. Researchers could then determine the recurrent patterns, themes or trends regarding successes, problems and recommendations for improvement regarding online communication issues.

Concluding Comments

Since its inception, technologically mediated instruction has begun to show great promise as a viable alternative classroom format. Central to all successful instructional activities is courteous communication among students and instructors. Courteous communication sets the stage for the formation of a genuine scholarly community where all participants can feel safe and secure in higher-order learning. Issues of civility in communication therefore warrant continued investigation in the cyber-classroom of the 21^st century.

References

Anderson, M. A. (1998, November-December). Internet staff development: A continuum. Book Report, 17(3), 38-41, 92-95.

Barclay, L. A., & York, K. M. (1999, March-April). Electronic communication skills in the classroom: An E-mail in-basket exercise. Journal of Education for Business, 74(4), 249-253.

Draves, W.A. (2002). Teaching online. (2^nd ed.). River Falls, WI: Learning Resources Network.

Johnson, D. (1999, March-April). Internet skill rubrics for teachers. Book Report, 17(5), 37-40.

Perks, D. J., Gavitt, D. R., & Olivo, J. L. (1997, December). Do you have an Internet acceptable policy? Computers and Education, 29(4), 147-151.

Phan, D. D., & Thoms, K. J. (1997). Etiquette in telecommunications and web pages. In Proceedings of the International Academy for Information Management Annual Conference (12^th, Atlanta, Georgia, December 12-14).

Shea, V. (1994, September-October). EDUCOM-Review, 29(5), 58-62.

About the Authors

Dr. Mary I. Dereshiwsky is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at the Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Her telephone number is (928) 523-1892 and her e-mail address is LDRSPETSCherry@aol.com.

Dr. Eugene R. Moan is Professor of Educational Psychology at the Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. His telephone number is (928) 523-9604 and his e-mail address is Eugene.Moan@nau.edu.

Dr. Athanase Gahungu is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, Curriculum and Foundations at the College of Education, Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois. His telephone number is (773) 995-2009 and his e-mail address is A-Gahungu@csu.edu.

Appendix A.

Civility in Online Communication Survey

The following survey deals with issues in online communication that you and your Web course students have experienced. It should only take five to ten minutes to complete.

Your Experience in Online Teaching:

Total number of semesters you’ve taught online:                                _________________

Number of different online courses you’ve taught:                              _________________

Your online students are (please check one response below):

____                Graduate

____                Undergraduate

____                Both

My online students and I use the following to communicate (please check all that apply):

____                E-mail between individual student and instructor

____                E-mail among students

____                Class-wide listserv

____                Virtual Conference Center (VCC)

____                Subscriptions to existing Internet listserv(s)

____                Other (please specify):  ______________________________________

Attitudes and Behaviors in Online Communication

Directions:       For each of the following items, please check only one response:

1.                It is more challenging to express emotions via the written word than in face-to-face communication.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

2.                It is easier to misinterpret written communication than face-to-face communication.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

3.                I felt adequately prepared for online communication prior to teaching my first course on the Web.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

4.                Standards of courteous communication are identical for all courses regardless of format: online, face-to-face, or interactive television-based.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

5.                New online students need help in learning how to communicate courteously in the Web classroom.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

6.                My students have typed in all caps in their written communications.

____    Always

____    Frequently

____    Sometimes

____    Never

____    Don’t Know

7.                My students express disagreement in online communications by focusing on issues rather than attacking personalities.

____    Always

____    Frequently

____    Sometimes

____    Never

____    Don’t Know

8.                My students have deleted e-mail from their instructor before reading.

____    Always

____    Frequently

____    Sometimes

____    Never

____    Don’t Know

9.                My students have deleted e-mail from one another before reading.

____    Always

____    Frequently

____    Sometimes

____    Never

____    Don’t Know

10.            I have had to intervene to stop flame wars (angry exchanges) among my students in their online communications.

____    Always

____    Frequently

____    Sometimes

____    Never

11.            My students use emoticons (smiley faces and other Internet shorthand to express emotions) appropriately in their online communications.

____    Always

____    Frequently

____    Sometimes

____    Never

____    Don’t Know

12.            Online communication makes it easier for shy students to withdraw.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

13.            It is easier for students to misinterpret class directions in the online environment than in traditional face-to-face classes.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

14.            It is harder to express enthusiasm via written online communication than in the traditional face-to-face environment.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

15.            My students are comfortable in sharing private communication with me via e-mail.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

16.            My online students have shared with me that they miss the face-to-face communication of the traditional classroom.

____    Always

____    Frequently

____    Sometimes

____    Never

17.            The lack of visual cues in the online teaching/learning environment makes it difficult for me to get a ‘read’ of my students.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

18.            It is more tempting to respond with anger to an online message than in the traditional face-to-face mode of communication.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

19.            The online communication format makes it too inhibiting to express candid opinions.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

20.            There are some subject areas for which the online classroom is not an adequate substitute for face-to-face communication.

____    Strongly Disagree

____    Moderately Disagree

____    Moderately Agree

____    Strongly Agree

Three things my students and I do especially well in our online communications are:

Three areas where my students and I could use improvement in online communications are:

Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts on online communication with us!

In This Issue | Podium | Featured Articles | Student Exchange | Technology Exchange
State Exchange | Positions Available | Calendar | Call For Papers | Past Issues