AUC Academic Conference 98

ABSTRACT

The Internet is facilitating a revolution in teaching and learning strategies as Universities take up the challenge of investigating flexible modes of delivery in contrast to the traditional fixed time and place lecture style delivery. The faculty of Education at the University of Wollongong realises the significance of this revolution and is exploring such flexible avenues by implementing a range of postgraduate subjects using World Wide Web technology. One particular subject: Implementation and Evaluation of Technology-Based Learning has been offered for the second time integrating the World Wide Web within the existing classroom environment. This paper describes the students' experiences and feedback of such a learning environment and raises issues necessary for consideration when developing and delivering online education.

Introduction

"The World Wide Web provides opportunities for more open (asynchronous) learning, although some Web-based learning events are temporally fixed (synchronous)...Major questions remain about whether or how the World Wide Web can be used to break the hegemony of the fixed instructional modes that limit pedagogical innovation in traditional academic settings. To date, most of the World Wide Web sites developed for education and training simply supplement traditional "fixed" approaches to teaching and learning." (Reeves & Reeves, 1997, p.63-64).

As part of the University initiative to trial flexible delivery approaches the postgraduate subject: Implementation and Evaluation of Technology-Based Learning, was offered using World Wide Web and video conferencing technologies.

Because there were two groups meeting on the same evening (one on campus, the other in Sydney 80kms away) the technologies were employed as a means of forming an online community. Students attended class each week and the instructor physically met with each class on alternate weeks. In class students had access to video conferencing technology and computers allowing them access to the class Web site via the University's Internet infrastructure.

Consequently, a weekly online community was formed but little asynchronous (delayed-time) communication transpired. Much of the online discussions were built around synchronous (real-time) question discussions.

In future course offerings it was felt that the features of asynchronous communication could be better utilised and provide a more flexible and effective learning environment. Thus in the following year the course was restructured to reduce the reliance on weekly fixed time meetings and to explore the possibilities of student led discussions (Agostinho, Lefoe & Hedberg, 1997).

The context of "Online Development"

Online development can be defined as developing learning resources in an electronic format (namely stored on a server, for example, a Web server) so that students can then access these resources electronically independent of time and place (as long as they have access to a computer and the server).

Resources can range from word processing documents presenting course content, to a comprehensive Web site providing a rich learning environment incorporating synchronous and asynchronous communication features, course content material, access to other relevant Web sites, etc. Such Web-based instruction is gaining popularity where the attributes and resources of the World Wide Web are used "to create a meaningful learning environment where learning is fostered and supported." (Khan, 1997, p.6).

In terms of delivery, courses can be designed with the intention of being delivered totally online creating a virtual community where students are geographically separated and do not make any physical face-to-face contact with the instructor and other students. Or they can take on more of a flexible approach (for example, Agostinho, Lefoe & Hedberg, 1997; Bell, 1997; Hedberg, Brown, Larkin & Agostinho, in press) where resources can be packaged in a number of ways.

Some aspects of the course can be delivered online, such as student discussions via asynchronous communication tools. Other aspects can be delivered using a combination of other media such as print-based materials, face-to-face sessions, video, etc. While there is a significant amount of literature about using the World Wide Web as a medium to deliver distance education, there is also a growing body of literature which supports its use as a resource-based learning tool to supplement the face-to-face on-campus delivery (Corderoy & Lefoe, 1997).

Resource-based learning environments enable resources which are designed for one purpose to be used to support other purposes (Hannafin, 1997, p.256) and students can access resources relevant to their needs creating a more learner-centred experience.

Within such learning environments students can create resources, such as assessable products and archived online discussions. This has important implications not only for the initial development of an online environment but for the design, maintenance and evolution of such an online environment for use by subsequent groups of students.

The revised implementation of an Online Environment

To encourage student online discussion outside class time, the traditional weekly class attendance structure of this course was restructured so that during a 14 week session, students attended eight class meetings (Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 14) and were to participate in asynchronous and synchronous online discussions during the non-required meeting periods. As such it was expected that all students have access to the Internet either from home, their work place or by using the on-campus computer lab facilities.

The assessment tasks comprised of three individual pieces of work followed by a group project. The instructor sequenced the tasks so that the outputs of the individual work would be used as resources for the final group project.

The assessment tasks involved:

Writing an essay discussing evaluation theories and how they can be employed in evaluation of technology-based learning. It was due in Week 4 and worth 30% of final grade. Class and online discussions prior to submitting this assignment were focused to inform students of the content applicable for this paper.
Developing a Web Study Guide on a selected topic. This was due in Week 8 and worth 30% of final grade. The aim of the Web Study Guide was to introduce the students to key issues of the topic and how these issues relate to the implementation and evaluation of technology-based learning. The topics were designed as background content for the group project. The instructor assumed all students had developed a Web Study Guide in a previous subject and thus expected a certain amount of computer and authoring literacy.
Evaluating the Web Study Guides according to a set of criteria generated in class. This was due in Week 11 and worth 10% of final grade.
Submitting a written proposal to evaluate a technology-based learning program. This was a group project and also involved a presentation to the entire class in the last week of session. (Worth 30% of final grade).

There were two groups, one met on campus on Monday evening from 4.30 - 7.30pm, the other met at The University Centre in Sydney on Tuesday evening from 5.30 - 8.30pm. There were eleven students and a participant observer in the Wollongong group. The Sydney group comprised of six students. All students had access to email accounts (although four students in the Wollongong class did not have email access in the first week of session).

A class Web site was developed allowing students access to relevant references, online resources, class schedule of topics, student information (each student submitted a profile of themselves), discussion tools, summaries of class discussions and the students' Web Study Guides.

The online discussion tools included a Live Chat tool which was to be used synchronously and a Discussion Forum tool for asynchronous communication. The Live Chat facility would post the most recent message at the top of the screen.

Students could use their name or an alias when posting messages and the maximum message length was approximately three lines. Messages are not automatically stored, however they can be saved. The Discussion Forum tool allowed students to create conferences and messages within each conference were archived and threaded.

The "Summary of Discussions" area was designed as a form so that students had the ability to post a summary of their group discussions for access by the rest of the class.

Students were kept informed about online discussions via a "message box" which appeared on the home page.

Results of the study

The results discussed in this paper are part of a doctoral research study. Several sources were used to collect data. They included:

the author's observations as a participant in the course
a post course interview with the instructor
student feedback from an end of session questionnaire (14 responses from 17 students)
student feedback from class Web site evaluation form (four responses).

In the end of session questionnaire, students rated their internet literacy from experienced to novice. Three students had little experience using email prior to this course. More than half of the students had never experienced the use of synchronous or asynchronous discussion tools while the rest claimed limited experience and one or two indicated they were quite experienced.

In terms of searching the Web for topics of interest, six claimed they were novices with basic search skills while eight felt quite experienced. Although it was assumed that all students had some expertise in creating Web Pages, four students stated they had no experience at all prior to this course, eight claimed they had limited experience mainly gained from a previous subject while two felt reasonably confident.

Eight students mostly accessed the class Web site from home via a payable Internet Service Provider (one student accessed the Internet via another University). Four students accessed the class Web site from the Wollongong campus and two students used their work place Internet connection.

Because the students were immersed in a technology-based learning environment while learning about it, the context of the course was slightly experimental in nature in that as the first few weeks of class proceeded, several online collaborative tools were introduced for students to work with. It was anticipated that the students would choose one over another for different learning and collaborating tasks.

What happened?

Students were told in the first week of class that Internet access would be required for this course. The assessment tasks were discussed and the structure and objectives of the required and non-required meeting weeks were explained.

The Web site was demonstrated and students then experimented with the Live Chat and Discussion Forum tools. A paper-based resource containing key reading material for the course was handed out and students were encouraged to start reading the articles in this hand out. No specific online discussion task outside class time was set for the first week. Students were asked to experiment with the tools.

Three students joined the Wollongong group in the second week. During this group meeting the content required for the first assignment was discussed and then students commenced a small group activity. The activity was aimed to assist students in completing the first assignment which was due in two weeks time. The instructor had created four conferences/topics with questions (each on an evaluation theorist) in the Discussion Forum tool.

Each student was randomly allocated to a group. The same was done for the Sydney group so each group comprised of three to four students from the Wollongong group and two students from the Sydney group. The task required each group to discuss the questions asynchronously and then collaborate online to produce a summary of their answers.

The summary was then to be posted to the "Summary of Discussions" area of the Web site in the following week. By posting their summary the week before the first assignment was due it was intended that others in the class could use the information.

All groups produced their summaries on time, however, the task proved to be quite a challenge for many students for a variety of reasons:

1. A few students expressed confusion as to the nature of the task.

[Live Chat] "Hi! Could anybody enlighten me as to how we should be approaching discussions on the major evaluation models? I understood that we should take the model that was allocated to us and discuss it on the web with our chosen groups. I am still in the dark..."
[Live Chat] "... I am not sure of what is going on. Some of Wollongong group have added to thread etc but I am not sure as to when we have to have the group report finished?..."
[Questionnaire] "For me, as the only member of the Sydney group, I found it difficult to know what to contribute."

2. Some students experienced difficulty in accessing the Discussion Forum and Live Chat tools

[Live Chat] "Is anybody having problems accessing the discussion forum? I have been trying all afternoon!
[Questionnaire] "Synchronous chat wasn't reliable (my machine would freeze) - the other was fine."

3. Organisation, time tabling, and lack of participation from group members were expressed problems.

[Questionnaire] "I found this an extremely frustrating exercise as it was very difficult to get all group members together. Again as there were no marks allocated some students were reluctant to participate."
[Questionnaire] "Our Sydney person didn't ever get on line to interact so we wrote our summary ourselves in W'gong."
[Questionnaire]"- meeting times - were difficult to organise."
[Discussion Forum] "I just received an Email from [student] saying she has to withdraw from the subject because of illness..."

Could this task have been too much too soon in too little time? For most students, this was their first experience in using these particular communication tools. Also, students within the groups did not know each other very well if at all.

In a ten day period students had to determine how to make contact with the members of their group, research the content to answer the assigned questions and work out roles and negotiate tasks to produce a summary online. In one group, collaboration didn't occur and one person produced the summary.

Was it a productive exercise? Despite the difficulties, eight students thought the exercise was a useful strategy in helping them complete their first assignment.

In these first few weeks of session, the main theme in the Live Chat space was "Is there anyone out there?" Many students experimented with the tool:

[Live Chat] "Hi! This is all very new to me. I'm not too comfortable talking to an anonymous audience. I'm a people person and I enjoy conversation. I thought I'd try this out, and see how I find it. Please talk back to me!"

Yet signs of frustration were shown from others:

[Live Chat] "Thankyou and Goodbye! I think I might have more luck communicating with the dead!
[Evaluation Form] "I found that I became very frustrated when I logged on at the prescribed times only to find there was only one or two other people participating"

In Week 4 students attended class and spoke of their experience completing the collaborative exercise and using the communication tools. One student stated:

[Student in class] "...so far really, this, the chat space hasn't for us been a solution to a real problem." "We don't have any real need, or haven't so far had any real need to use it."

In response to this, the class agreed to meet online on Monday and Tuesday of the following week (which was a non-required meeting week) from 5.30 - 6pm to discuss one of the allocated readings. The criteria for the next assessment task, the Web Study Guide, was discussed and the first assignment was due (although not everyone had finished it).

A new discussion tool (DISCUS) was introduced and was to be used as the asynchronous tool for discussing the allocated reading over the next non-required meeting period. The instructor set up a conference with questions for students to answer. Digital photos were also taken of the students and posted on the class Web site in an attempt to establish better rapport between the two groups.

On the Monday evening of the non-required meeting week (Week 5) only four students from the Wollongong group and four students from the Sydney group signed onto the Live Chat space. They were not sure what they were supposed to discuss and not much discussion about the allocated reading occurred.

Some excerpts include:

[Live Chat] "08/18/97:17:39: so what's the plan with the Chat space - do we have an assigned topic or is this a cosy little forum for getting to know each other."
[Live Chat] "08/18/97:17:40: That's a good question, [student name]. I wish I knew the answer."
[Live Chat] "08/18/97:17:41: I thought everyone was suppose to be on at this time"
[Live Chat] "08/18/97:17:54: Hi Everybody, Is there a chat topic we are supposed to be discussing or are we just generally getting familiar with the technology today??"

On the Tuesday night, only two of the Sydney students signed onto the chat space. Again little discussion occurred.

During this non-required meeting period many of the students contributed to the DISCUS asynchronous forum, however there was little discussion. Everyone simply posted their "answers". There was no interaction among students.

There was a confusion in that some students said that they had simply forgotten to sign onto the Live Chat space while others said they signed onto the DISCUS forum and were waiting for a synchronous session to occur there.

In Week 6 the home page for the class Web site was modified. This was done for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Web site was evolving. For example, online resources from students in the previous course were provided to assist students with their Web Study Guide, student photos had been posted to the "Student Profiles" area, another asynchronous forum was set up in DISCUS to discuss another allocated reading, etc.

Students needed to be informed of the additions to the class Web site as well as given instructions about class activities. Thus it was decided to create a "Notices" section, which would provide students with all the latest updates about the course and the Web site. Secondly, because students were using a form of technology-based learning while learning about it a "Tool Tips and Your Say" area was provided to give the students the opportunity to provide feedback about the course and their use of the technology in the course.

Although students were informed of another topic for discussion in DISCUS, there was only one student contribution. Everyone was busy designing and developing their Web Study Guides.

Once the Web Study Guides were completed, they were made available on the class Web Site and students were required to evaluate them.

For the final group project, students formed their own groups. There were two groups in the Sydney class and three groups in the Wollongong class. One student in the Wollongong class chose not to form a group and completed the project on his own. During this time, the Live Chat space and the asynchronous tools were rarely used. All groups organised face-to-face meetings to work on the final project.

Emerging Issues

Integrating online discussion with flexible meeting times
While there had been several attempts to manage online learning for professional teachers, this course was the first postgraduate course which sought to allow flexibility in meeting times and to actively create links between different groups of students who would normally only correspond through the instructor. During the session it became apparent that for many students the non-required meeting weeks were viewed as a "week off".

When asked in the questionnaire what they thought about the concept of flexible meeting times the majority of students (12) stated they liked the concept. Some thought it was good because they had more time to complete their assignments, others liked the concept but felt it could have been better implemented:

[Questionnaire] "The concept has potential - but there needs to be some motivation (10% of marks) for people to be involved - I think most people (including myself) felt like it was a week off."
[Questionnaire] "Good but shame wasn't utilised properly"
[Questionnaire] "The concept is good. I don't know if everybody gave it a chance."
[Questionnaire] "Good concept as long as students understand what is required outside of face-to-face meeting time or have specific outcomes to achieve."

Of the two students who felt the concept was not effective, one stated that it caused a "lack of group cohesion". The other "missed the classroom contact".

Students were also asked to give reasons explaining why there was not much online discussion about the allocated readings. Five themes emerge:

1. Lack of motivation to participate

[Questionnaire] "Because there was no mark allocated to this expectation - most people seemed to use these as weeks off rather than an opportunity to communicate electronically."
[Questionnaire] "...I'm not sure - perhaps the subject matter - people weren't motivated enough to contribute."
[Questionnaire] "Most of us, likely, focused on the current assignment"

2. Confusion over what time to sign on

[Questionnaire] "People regarded it as a week off. Seemed to be some confusion about time too so some joined at 4.30, others at 5.30/6pm..."
[Questionnaire] "not sure everyone understood that they should be online for discussions..."

3. Lack of topic focus in synchronous discussions

[Questionnaire] "...unless specifically facilitated, the discussion quickly becomes social (not that there's anything wrong with that)."
[Questionnaire] "Synchronous - I think this was a problem partly because we didn't have a particular topic to discuss..."

However, on several occasions students went online and did undertake in a range of discussions. The topics of these discussions were broader and related to the applications of the technology for teaching and learning. Students generally felt reticent about initiating a discussion about articles and other readings.

4. Nature of the tools

[Questionnaire] "It took a few weeks to get used to the tools."
[Questionnaire] "Lack of experience..."
[Questionnaire] " Synchronous ...partly because of the nature of the software - it seems difficult to 'discuss' anything in depth because people's comments appear on screen at random."
[Questionnaire] "Just didn't have the same feel...Sometimes it felt disjointed, but (maybe due to lack of tone, body language etc)..."

5. Personalities

[Questionnaire] "I think it has to do with the personalities of the people in the group. There was little discussion on a face-to-face level to begin with-which may explain the situation when it came to on-line discussion."

However, all students agreed that using online discussion tools to discuss course literature is an effective learning strategy. Suggestions for improvement include:

[Questionnaire] "Perhaps it is the maturity of tool, perhaps it is the nature of people who take classes - they need social interaction, perhaps our habits and comfort zone. Don't throw the idea out, just perhaps introduce it and use it in a different way, maybe."
[Questionnaire] "I think it is potentially very useful, but perhaps students need more incentive to join in , particularly in the early stages."
[Questionnaire] "This strategy is interesting. Moreover, it would be effective if sufficient time was allocated."
[Questionnaire] "It is good, and an important strategy. However discussions need to be - structured somehow - guided somehow - organised - focused or it's a shambles."
[Questionnaire] "Has potential - BUT most seemed to prefer to use face to face meeting to raise discussion. I think it would work better in a course where there are NO meeting weeks and the only way to communicate is electronically."

In summary this feedback suggests that students are still working to come to grips with a new and difficult way of learning. They exemplify the concern by asking for more incentive, more time, more structure, and more guidance.

A great deal of self-motivation is needed to communicate in an asynchronous environment when there are other means of communication available (such as face-to-face meetings). Incentives can take several forms. Extrinsic incentives to participate online such as the allocation of marks is one method suggested by a few students.

However, how is the participation then assessed? Should it be assessed? Can some students learn about the content by participating as "lurkers" rather than being forced to be "contributors"?

Intrinsic incentives may have more potential. Consider the nature of the first online exercise students were given. The posting of the group summary to the class Web site was intended to assist them in completing the first assignment. One student commented: "...because others were counting on your output I was motivated to participate" This online task had purpose in that it was linked to an assessable task thus students had incentive to collaborate.

Within an online learning community the instructor is no longer "in charge" but takes the role of a facilitator (Sherry and Wilson, 1997, p.68). When students are not experienced with such learning environments the instructor needs to act as a change agent so that students can see the worth of this learning environment.

"Hand holding" in the early stages may be required as well as providing adequate time for students to become comfortable with the technology before they need to participate (Berge, 1995, p.28). Strong facilitation may be required to direct and focus the online discussion and may take the form of an instructor actively participating in the discussion or allowing students the opportunity to act as facilitators.

New ways of presenting and learning content

More than half of the class thought that reviewing the Web Study Guides was an effective learning strategy in comparison to sitting in class listening to the traditional student seminar presentation. As one student commented: "I don't think without this exercise we would have had a chance to read so many different subjects and different ways of presenting those subjects.

" Other comments such as: "Easier to take in - can keep going back to get info", "worked at your own pace - information is always there for you to reference", "the Web Guides remain in permanent form", "you can access it at your convenience" purport a more learner-centred focus.

There was a lot of discussion in class and among groups about the development and evaluation of the Web Study Guides. Students described their experiences of learning about the topics presented in Web Study Guides and how they went about evaluating them.

The concept of "constructing" an electronic resource on the Web and how students could then use such resources to help them create a mental model of not just one topic (as covered in their Web Study Guides) but of the entire course content was discussed. Consider the following excerpt from a class face-to-face discussion:

[Instructor]: "It would be feasible in fact, for me to give you a folder...and you could actually create the content of the course, come in here and drop it all in, move it around add your... front index page..."
[Student]: "I thought about something like that just looking at the Web study guides. If you look at the amount of overlap...it would have been nice to try to get each person's perspective on an overall conceptual model on how all the topics sort of fit in."
[Instructor]: "Imagine this scenario. That you take on your Web study guide topic. You have... your little sand pit into which you place your study guide as well as which everyone else places their study guides and then you have to resolve the interconnectedness and all the rest of it within that space."
[Student]: "It's a different strategy as opposed to just reading and absorbing someone else's. You're actually constructing your model and how you perceive things..."

As Web authoring tools become easier to use, it is possible for students to use such tools to construct their own interpretation of the course content. In effect, they can use the Web environment as a cognitive tool (Reeves & Reeves, 1997). The learner is the designer (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). The student becomes the author.

The evolving nature of the online environment

Because each student produced a Web Study Guide and then used the Web Study Guides as background information for the final project they were essentially creating resources. Hannafin (1997, p.260) argues that the learner is a fundamental component in a resource-based learning environment as they are "an active participant in the generation of unique structures and resources".

One student in the course stated that the online discussion strategy "is a smart way of creating an info bank of people's ideas about the course literature."

This evolving dynamic nature of Web-based resources means that subsequent groups of students can access previous student products and online discussions which enables the concept of "learning on the shoulders of others" to result. (Hedberg, Brown, Larkin & Agostinho, in press) Unlike delivering a traditional face-to-face course where the same content is presented over and over again and the same assessment tasks assigned, this dynamic learning environment enables students to learn from their predecessors taking "learning" to a new plateau. (Hedberg, Brown, Larkin & Agostinho, in press)

However, this has implications for the design and maintenance of online environments. For example, in this course many students found the class Web site quite complex and did not like the fact that the Web site evolved:

[Questionnaire] "Make it - simpler, - shorter, - do not change half way or add things."
[Questionnaire] "I think there were too many discussion formats."
[Questionnaire] "Less is better?"
[Questionnaire] "It seems this time was developmental. Next time should be better because all the teething troubles would be over."
[Web Site] "I find the Web site...useful and challenging but I think a bit overloaded since lots of work to do particularly for designing a Web study guide. Or may be I am a little bit technofobic or out of dated student..."

In terms of assessment, tasks need to be constantly updated. The instructor needs to be creative and dynamic in order to integrate previous student resources into the current online environment. The instructor of this course realises this issue:

[Instructor in interview] "What I think we might have to do as time goes by is actually identify more specific assessment tasks...So, if you're looking at the ongoing development, you're actually trying to fill in the slots, so the next group of students will have to choose from a set of pre-defined topics that are not well represented within the resources we've got. Consequently we will fill the gaps, so over time the Web site will become a better body of resources..."

All this requires time and commitment but the reward is the accumulation of a wealth of resources from a variety of learner's perspectives.

Conclusion

"Any innovative project requires ongoing evaluation, revision, and support until the innovation becomes part of the culture. Web-based instruction involves creating an environment where resources are available and collaboration is supported, where Web-based activities are incorporated into an overall learning framework, and where novices and experts alike are supported. This is not easy!" (Sherry & Wilson, 1997, p.68)

It is apparent from the comments expressed by the educational technology students of this course that although some refinements are required, we are following the right path in providing flexible resource-based learning environments which have the potential of enhancing learning, enhancing the possibility of people being more involved in the learning process and quite importantly making the learning journey an enjoyable yet challenging ride.

Acknowledgement

A special thank you to all students in this course for taking the time to provide such valuable feedback.

References

Agostinho, S., Lefoe, G., & Hedberg, J. (1997). Online collaboration for learning: A case study of a post graduate university course. Paper presented at AUSWEB'97, The Third Australian World Wide Web Conference, Southern Cross University, Lismore.
Available URL: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/proceedings/index.html [Accessed July 1997]

Bell, M. (1997). Flexible learning within a tertiary teaching subject. Paper presented at ASCILITE'97, Perth.
Available URL: http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ASCILITE97/papers-index.html [Accessed January 1998]

Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.

Corderoy, R. M., & Lefoe, G. (1997). Tips and secrets for online teaching and learning: An inside view. Paper presented at ASCILITE'97, Perth.
Available URL: http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ASCILITE97/papers-index.html [Accessed January 1998]

Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Resource-based learning environments: Methods and models. Paper presented at ASCILITE'97, Perth.
Available URL: http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ASCILITE97/papers-index.html [Accessed January 1998]

Hedberg, J. G., Brown, C., Larkin, J. L., & Agostinho, S. (in press). Designing practical web sites for interactive training. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Training. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp.693-719). New York: Macmillan.

Khan, B. H. (1997). Web-based instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it? In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp.19-23). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp.59-66). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Sherry, L., & Wilson, B. (1997). Transformative communication as a stimulus to web innovations. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp.67-73). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Contact Details
John Hedberg,
Professor,
Faculty of Education,
University of Wollongong,
NSW 2522
Email: john_hedberg@uow.edu.au

Barry Harper,
Professor,
Faculty of Education,
University of Wollongong
NSW 2522

Shirley Corrent-Agostinho,
Ph.D. Candidate,
Faculty of Education,
University of Wollongong
NSW 2522

Return to top