Introduction

Online learning is relatively new but rapidly growing within and outside university settings (Goodyear, 200a, 200b; Kearsley, 200, 2002; Khan, 1997; Rosenberg, 2001). Many important questions remain unanswered or unexplored, including which instructional approaches and methods are optimal in terms of cost and learning effectiveness in various settings and situations (Dibiase, 2000; Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Steeples, & Tichner, 2001). Syracuse University has supported a number of online learning initiatives that involve many differences, especially with regard to:

1. audiences (on-campus undergraduate and graduate students, off-campus adult learners, students and teachers in remote schools, etc.);
2. access situations (home access via modem, high-speed access on campus and in the workplace, no Web access, time constraints, etc.);
3. implementation approaches (Web-supported campus courses, online courses for remote learners, blended environments, use of facilitators and assistants for group work, etc.);
4. communication methods (asynchronous threaded discussions, synchronous forums, video-conferencing, blended environments, etc.);
5. learning perspectives (structured learning activities, discovery learning, problem-based learning, etc.);
6. learning goals (conceptual knowledge, understanding complex relationships, procedural training, etc.); and
7. tools and technologies (web course management systems, courseware authoring tools, interactive simulations, etc.).

The research study at Syracuse University targeted the fourth item in the list above (communication methods), focusing on different forms of e-collaboration and their effects on learning outcomes, direct costs and teacher and student time. E-collaboration refers to alternative methods and different communications technologies that students can use to work with each other and with teachers and tutors to achieve specific learning outcomes. Common e-collaboration techniques include:

1. collaboration with a tutor/teacher via asynchronous means such as e-mail; we consider this minimal collaboration;
2. asynchronous, threaded discussions with topics posted; we consider this a form of modest collaboration, especially when combined with e-mail;
3. synchronous forum groups with semi-structured small group assignments and goals; we consider this more elaborate collaboration, especially when also used with e-mail and discussion forums; and,
4. asynchronous and synchronous audio- and video-based methods (tele-conferencing, video-conferencing, and Web-casting); we consider this elaborate collaboration but did not explore its cost and learning effects in this study.

The major elements involved in this study were the:

• Audiences: adult learners taking university courses; the audience included undergraduates and graduates some of whom were on campus and some were off campus.
• Access situations: high or low speed Web access with access occurring at home, at the university or in the workplace.
• Implementation approaches: the online courses involved were completely online and involved two different Web course management systems (BlackBoard and WebCT)
• Communication methods: the online courses involved e-mail, threaded discussions and chat sessions but did not involve audio- or video-based methods.
• Learning perspectives and goals: in all cases, learning perspectives mirrored those that were used in the courses when they were taught face-to-face, although some researchers argue that different perspectives are required for online teaching (Goodyear, 2000a, 200b; Jonassen, Hernandez-Serrano, & Choi, 2000).
• Tools and technologies: Web course management systems (BlackBoard and WebCT).

Focus of the study

The focus of this study was the effects of different forms of communication and collaboration on learning and instruction in online courses. The three courses involved in the study were:

• Religions of the World (REL 101) - lower division, undergraduate students residing on campus.
• Latin American Geography (GEO/LAS 321) - upper division, undergraduate students some of whom were remotely located.
• Instructional Design (IDE 614) - graduate students, most were resident in the local area but some were not.

1. The specific forms of communication and collaboration in online settings effect the time demands placed on students and instructors.
2. Learning outcomes in online university courses are not significantly different from those in traditional university classrooms.
3. Time required to design, develop and deliver online courses are major factors in the cost effectiveness of online instruction.
4. Student and faculty experience with online instruction effect perceptions of effectiveness.
5. Student and faculty perception of the benefits of online instruction improve with experience in online environments.

Table 1. Enrollments, attrition and Mellon participation.

Findings

Student outcomes

Student learning outcomes were determined by traditional methods - grades and faculty perceptions of student performance. Grades awarded were comparable with those awarded by these same instructors for other online and face-to-face offerings. In short, there are no significant differences in grades to report. This is in fact a positive finding as student performance using the standard measure of grades appears not to be effected by whether or not one of these courses is offered in a classroom or online setting.

It is worth noting that grades were strongly correlated with student activity as measured by various indicators in the online course environments (e.g., messages posted, participation in discussion threads, etc.). This finding is also consistent with what is generally reported for traditional courses - the more actively students participate and are engaged in learning, the more likely they are to do well. Table 2 shows the data relating student activity with grades for one of the courses involved in this study (REL 101).

Table 2. Grades and online activity in REL 101.

Student time

A well-established predictor of learning outcomes has been time-on-task (Bloom, 1971; Carroll, 1963, Fisher & Berliner, 1985). Tabled 3 reflects student time in the courses involved in this study. For the three online courses offered in the Spring of 2002, the time reflected in Table 3 is broken down into student time reportedly spent while online in the course environment and time spent offline. Since the Fall 2001 course was primarily face-to-face and intended to serve as a baseline point of reference, total student time is reflected. One obvious pattern of behavior evident from the summary of student time in Table 3 is that the graduate students in IDE 614 on average put in more time than the undergraduate students in GEO/LAS 321 and REL 101. Moreover, the upper division undergraduate students in GEO/LAS 321 put in more time on average than the lower division students in REL 101. These data again parallel what occurs in traditional classrooms - upper division and graduate students typically invest more time in their coursework.

Table 3. Student time reported on weekly logs (minutes weekly; totals in hours).