Texts and Technologies: Entry #2 (Redo)

 Effective uses for Blackboard: Do Students and Faculty have a Shared Vision for how Blackboard should be used to Support Instruction?

Sutton, S. R., McCoy, S., & Pfaffman, J. Effective uses for Blackboard: Do students and faculty have a shared vision for how Blackboard should be used to support instruction? In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3361-3366). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved November 8, 2013 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33894

In this conference paper, Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman present the results of a mixed-methods study on student perceptions of the effectiveness of Blackboard on their learning. Beginning with a focus group of five students, the researchers developed and piloted a survey that combined both Likert-scale items and open-ended questions to answer two primary research questions: 

1) What faculty uses of Blackboard do students value as the most effective/least effective in enhancing their learning?

2) From a student’s perspective, which uses of Blackboard are helpful and which are bothersome? (p. 3362).

The final version of the survey was administered to 8,000 undergraduate students at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville of which 1109 students (14%) responded.

The survey consisted of six sections: demographic information, features rating, helpful uses of Blackboard, not helpful uses of Blackboard, use of the Discussion Board, use of Blackboard vs. non-use of Blackboad. The combination of Likert-scale items and open-ended questions allowed researchers to corroborate the ratings of the features with students’ more detailed responses.

Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman found that the students value access to information as the primary feature of Blackboard. Students indicated access to grades, course documents, course notes, and course announcements as the most helpful features of the course management system. Likewise, they preferred faculty use of these features to be timely and proactive—specifically, they distinguished between faculty who posted course notes and announcements with sufficient time for access and review and those who posted course notes and announcements right before or after class. Overall, Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman found that “students liked professors who used Blackboard, were cognizant of students’ time, and posted promptly, consistently, and in a timely fashion” (p. 3365).

As a result of focus group discussions, the survey featured a section on the Discussion Board feature of Blackboard and responses to the use of forums were varied. The results indicate that students’ value of Blackboard discussions were dependent on faculty’s use of the feature. Students found discussions less helpful when they were perceived as busy work, redundant to class discussions, and ignored by faculty. Conversely, students found discussions more helpful when they were structured as introductions to or extensions of in-class discussions and when faculty were heavily involved in moderating the discussions.

While not directly related to our class discussions, this study does offer a unique perspective on user perception of a practical interface design that, in fact, ignores the design. By surveying Blackboard’s secondary audience of students, Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman evaluate the primary audience’s (instructors’) ability to effectively use the interface to enhance learning. Realizing that many faculty do not use Blackboard despite students’ preference for it, especially for timely access to course materials, raises questions about access and accessibility for both students and faculty.

Unlike other studies that focus on faculty’s perceptions, likes, and dislikes of Blackboard, this study’s focus on students indicates that students’ feelings toward Blackboard are dependent on the faculty’s ability to take advantage of the affordances of the software. This information is helpful for my own research in that it confirms that students view Blackboard and its Discussion Board as tools for class rather than as a site for the community-building and democracy that Feenburg argues can result from communication technologies. 

Because the study focused on students’ perceptions of the effectiveness with which faculty used the course management software, it does leave me with unanswered questions regarding students’ perception of the interface design, especially in regards to the Discussion Board and whether it encourages or discourages engaged discussions.