N C A

   National
   Communication
   Association
     
Founded 1914

 

  1765 N. Street N.W.
  Washington, D.C. 20036
  202-464-4622
  202-464-4600 (fax)

Characteristics of students in online courses differ in unexpected ways

Can students learn to speak in public from online courses?  This topic has been hotly debated within the communication discipline, and, for the most part, evidence for one side of the debate or the other has been mostly based on personal experiences, rather than systematically-collected data.  Now, some of this systematically collected data has been published, in the April 2001 issue of Communication Education.

Ruth Anne Clark, a professor of speech communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and David Jones, chair of fine and applied arts at Parkland College, collected information from students enrolled in traditional and online sections of public speaking courses at a community college in the Midwestern U.S.  They wanted to see if there were differences in the personal characteristics of the students who enrolled in the online vs. the traditional sections, whether there were differences in the perceived apprehension about public speaking or perceived differences in the students’ assessments of their own speaking abilities.  They also wanted to see if there were actual differences in the quality of the student speeches at the end of the course.

The student participants in the study were enrolled in either an eight-week online section of a basic public speaking course, or they were enrolled in an eight-week traditional section of public speaking.  Both types of courses began and ended at the same time, and each instructor taught both a traditional and an online section of the course.  The instructors used the same assignments and the same textbook for all sections of the course.

The online students completed assignments according to a calendar.  They prepared and delivered public speeches to audiences that they located, and they submitted videotapes of their speeches for instructor feedback and grade.  They submitted their examinations via first-class mail.  They communicated with their instructors via e-mail or in chat rooms.  The students in the traditional section attended class sessions, heard instructor lectures and completed written assignments, took exams in class, and prepared and delivered speeches for their classmates.  Both groups of students gathered for the presentation of their final speeches on the last scheduled day of the course.  Both groups also gathered face-to-face at the beginning of the course.

At the beginning of the course, the researchers asked all students to complete a questionnaire about their personal characteristics and their reasons for taking the course in the format they had chosen.  They also asked the students to complete a measure of their apprehension about speaking and a measure of their perceptions of their own public speaking abilities.  At the end of the course, the researchers asked all students to complete the same measures of apprehension of estimate of their speaking abilities.  They also videotaped all final speeches, and two trained individuals who had previously not been connected with the study rated these speeches without knowing that the purpose of the study was to assess differences between online and traditional methods of instruction.

There were no differences, either before or after the course, between the students’ ratings of their apprehension about speaking or their assessments of their own speaking abilities.  And, there were no differences in the raters’ evaluations of the students’ final speeches.  There were, however, differences in the personal characteristics of the students enrolled in the traditional and online sections of the course.

Students enrolled in the online sections were more likely to be male, to be experienced in college-level work, and to have taken an online course previously.  They also worked more hours per week than the students in the traditional sections, and they valued the aspect of the course that required fewer days of on-campus attendance.  More of the online students had easy access to a computer, and they regarded themselves as better at undertaking independent work than did the students enrolled in the traditional courses.  They also saw as less important the ability to interact regularly with peers in the course and to give their speeches in front of a group of people with whom they were familiar.

There were some potentially important factors where the online and traditional students were not different, however.  Students in the online and traditional sections did not differ in age, how far from campus they resided or whether they had children living at home.  They also did not differ in how much they enjoyed using the computer or in their frequency of e-mail use.  Both groups rated getting to know the course instructor as being very important to the course experience.  The online group, however, suffered greater attrition in course enrollment than did the group in the traditional sections.

The researchers concluded that there were no differences in performance between traditional and online students, but there were different reasons why individual students sought out the format for the course that they had chosen.  They cautioned that their results were based on relatively small numbers of students and that the instructors were enthusiastic about teaching in both the traditional and online formats, but they indicated that continuing to work on effective online formats for public speaking courses would be likely to be beneficial to some categories of students.

Clark, R.A., & Jones, D. (2001).  A comparison of traditional and online formats in a public speaking course.  Communication Education, 50, 109-124.

 

 
  This portion of www.natcom.org is managed by Jennifer Peltak.   If you have suggestions or additions, please contact her directly. NCA: 1765 N Street, NW,  Washington, D.C. 20036;  202-464-4622;  202-464-4600 (fax)