Grounded Guidelines/Case Study: Cultural Studies
Evaluation
Use the back arrow in your browser to return to the main document
Most comments were in terms of comparing the case for face-to-face versus textual modes of exchange. By comparison CMC is often seen to be empowering to the individual tutorial contributor.
Usually in tutorials people - not my group - but people just usually sit and roll their thumbs...The conversation was really really good on First Class because when you write things down you remember to say a lot more than when you are doing face-to-face. [Text conferencing student answering question about comparing face to face and online tutorials] |
It is seen to extend the reach of the discussion through the large potential audience and as liberating from the perceived tyranny of tutor-led discussions.
So much more can be said and the fact that so many can take part in the same conversation. Because in tutorials there are only 15 people but when you read something on First Class we are talking about the whole group of 200 and so you can get so many different opinions on things. [Text conferencing student answering question about the relative value of the two modes of tutorial experience] |
It could be used in anything that just needs a good conversation to get started; but that's why people are getting into it because they can actually talk about it with each other and it's not just a matter of teachers projecting thoughts onto us. [Text conferencing student answering question about the relative advantages of access to text conferencing in context of a lecture course] |
It promotes more reflective and considered contributions of a tutorial nature. Moreover, it is there to hand at moments when you feel inspired to contribute.
People are actually thinking about what they are going to write because it's going to be there for a while and people are going to read it. [Text conferencing student answering question about the advantages of having access to the system and answering in terms of the thoughtfulness of people's contributions] |
It's a fact, it's there 24 hours a day. It's there when you can make yourself available...Because of the timetable, because full-time courses feel very much part-time - I mean I am in Monday, Tuesday and that's it. I have one more lecture on Friday, well I work now so that's three mornings a week. [Text conferencing student answering question about the overall advantages of the First Class system] |
While it is not the same as face-to-face discussion, for some it may seem a tantalisingly close approximation. Finally, the experience is seen by some as being 'modern' and in step with possible aspirations for new information societies.
I enjoy discussion, I enjoy face-to-face; and First Class I think it's not that far removed from face-to-face. It is quite good, and plus the fact that you definitely gain from - especially a journalist's course - you have to think about, you're writing and have to think about how people are going to receive this; because you can write it and post it in a second. [Text conferencing student answering question about the general advantages of access to the system] |
Before this programme I couldn't really see the point; but there was a very interesting OU programme on recently and they were talking about the information society and intellectual capital and, you know, the future workers of the future etc. You are going to have to work in groups and to make ideas into money, they are all going to have to contribute...and I thought "oh so that's what this is all about, technology is obviously the future". [Text conferencing student answering question about their overall impression of the experience at the end] |
Yet there are reservations. In particular, in relation to the content of the discussion itself - which is judged by some to have a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Moreover the format of face-to-face tutorials is seen by some as involving something precious - whatever the shortcomings of these live conversations.
Wasting time just chatting about anything...a lot of the time it's not actually academic discussion, it's just - you know, just personal chat. I would say most of the messages on the main screen are important, you know relevant to the main course; and then, in the tutorial groups, there are important messages too but there is a lot of chit chat goes on. [Text conferencing student answering question about what the system gets used for and concentrating here on the tutorial group discussion and the chat system's discussions which are both seen as often fairly recreational] |
I think it is useful, but I would still have to have the normal tutorials as well as a combination. It's good but separately you would be a bit lost on your own if you were always just on First Class. The combination is good. [Text conferencing student answering question about a general evaluation of the experience] |
You won't become so positive to communicate so openly face-to-face; you won't learn how to communicate more openly - as you should in a university I think. [Text conferencing student answering question about a general evaluation and expressing reservation about the breadth of value of participating in this form of discussion on text boards] |
The role of the tutors in moderating this discussion was often remarked upon. It was clear that there was no way they could easily do the right thing. For some, the key issue was to have them in the background allowing the students to do their own work unhindered. For others, there was felt need for more reassurance and feedback from this authority. Or, because there was such commentary, that it should be more generously spread.
What they wanted to do was let us have a discussion. They perhaps didn't want to be interfering in the discussion and, yes, they did come in at times and sort of say "yes we talked about that can we get onto this now" but perhaps they didn't do that as much. There was one question that went up and no one discussed the question, and the tutor should have come back and said "look no one is discussing this question...I want to see something from everyone on this question". [Text conferencing student answering question about the role of the tutors in the discussion areas on the text conference] |
You wouldn't be so willing to go online and I don't think you would appreciate the little comments that they write on it because you wouldn't know who they were. [Text conferencing student answering question about the relevance of knowing the participants through contact in the live course] |
They are not actually there discussing it with us but they do comment on what we say. I think they are doing a good job. [Text conferencing student answering question about the role of the tutors in the text based discussion groups] |
Several features of this class strike one as relevant to the quality of the experience as it was articulated by the users. These features might not be present in other classes and so we are reminded of the idiosyncratic nature of the medium and its effects.
In particular the class was large, first year, a mixture of disciplinary registrations and a good proportion of mature students living at home. There is much in this mixture of ingredients that recommends text conferencing. The more campus-isolated students did value the contact. The size of the class minimised possible embarrassment through inevitable anonymity.
The existence of parallel face-to-face tutorials was also very relevant to students' reactions. For on these occasions the momentum of the text conferencing could be sustained by explicit reference and, perhaps, the sense of common class purpose could be reinforced. Many students implied they would have felt cheated if this contact was not preserved at some level and they often recognised that it furnished a different form of experience - that was important to them.
Participation was ensured through taking it into account via assessment and through requiring that a group project was catalysed by the medium. The logging of use may have led to some cynicism - as some peers were seen to rapidly make up time close to crucial deadlines. The group work idea was distinctly problematic. It seems that coordinating joint writing in this medium is very difficult and students' awareness of the easier route they could have followed if all were in a face-to-face tutorial was a source of some irritation.
Finally, the academic content of the course may also have been very relevant to the high degree of engagement in CMC. Introductory work in cultural studies inevitably invites students to talk about cultural material very familiar to them in their recreational lives (particularly television and film). On looking at the preserved email discussions there is a sense of rather undisciplined contributions. Perhaps an acid test of how far the discussion is going beyond informal talk about mass media is the frequency with which contributors make explicit reference to academic sources or course-related themes/topics. In fact, this happened rather rarely.
The intervention did seem successful in creating the conditions for a more animated atmosphere among the students taking the course. In many respects we may say that there was a good match to the medium here: the constituency of the students, the forms of assessment, and the nature of the academic topic may have been optimised to ensure participation. This favourable mix must be kept in mind when extrapolating to other teaching contexts.
