Download Could oral communication skills become a casualty of online

Could oral communication skills become a casualty of
online learning?: A future scenario that could prevent this
'(
Sherryl Tanian
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
[email protected]
Kandy James
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
[email protected]
Abstract: The development of online learning is flourishing because it has many
advantages for both tertiary institutions and their students. Instructional
designers, however, must ensure that students’ oral communication skills do not
suffer due to the removal of face-to-face interaction. Poor oral communications
skills have been identified as a major problem in society, as they can lead to the
breakdown of personal and business relationships (Hynes & Bhatia, 1996).
Unfortunately such skills are seen to be lacking in many employees and graduates
(McDaniel & White, 1993).This paper envisions a desired future scenario for
incorporation of oral communication skills into an ideal online learning
environment. As this goal is not yet attainable within the bounds of existing
technology, a more realistic alternative for the short term is proposed. The paper
outlines a simulated scenario that will be trialled and modified for future use.
Keywords: online learning, oral communication, synchronous videoconferencing
Online learning
There has been a push from students, governments, tertiary institutions and the workplace for
the development of online courses (Vician & Brown, 2001). According to Vician & Brown
(2001), online learning has quickly became a pervasive study option, offering “anytimeanyplace, one-to-one or one-to-many communication venues”. Online learning is a
particularly attractive option for meeting the diverse needs of adult learners.
Online learning has been seen by many educational institutions and governments as the
panacea to improve the delivery and quality of student learning. Educational institutions view
online learning as a means of coping with diminishing resources while catering for greater
diversity in student populations. In addition they believe that online learning will enhance the
technological skills required by the workforce (Bailey & Cotlar, 1994).
The changing nature of the workforce, where many part time students work flexible hours or
in different locations, has also contributed to the need for flexible delivery modes. Other
needs for off-campus study, distance education, flexible delivery of courses and online
learning have also been well documented in the literature (Terry, 2001). Students’ criteria for
selecting delivery modes can include family and work commitments, working and living
HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 634
locations and their social life. They can also reflect their learning style, predisposition to the
learning venue and ease of study. Other considerations may be availability and capability of
hardware and software, and familiarity with technology (Vician & Brown, 2001).
Online learning offers an ideal opportunity to increase learning effectiveness through
collaboration. According to Berge (2000) online learning can be interactive. Students can
interact with the content (material supplied by the online program) or with others about the
content, and both types of interaction are needed for “efficient, effective, and affective
learning” (Berge, 2000). Rather than simply placing class materials (lecture notes and
overheads) online and expecting students to operate in isolation, true online learning offers a
wide variety of additional learning aids (World Wide Web, Listserv and newsgroups) and
access to other learners for information, discussion and problem-solving (Knowlton, 2000).
There are many critics of online learning however. One of the main criticisms relates to
pedagogical issues. It has been suggested that online learning encourages individualism,
eliminates the interpersonal role of teachers and students, and consequently, peer
collaboration, and removes the interactive learning environment (Carstens & Worsfold, 2000;
Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Compbell, & Bannan Haag, 1995). These authors regarded
online learning as an expedient method of delivering education, however, this delivery
method could be exploited to save costs, which could ultimately reduce learning effectiveness
and encourage the traditional teacher-centred approach. Carstens & Worsfold (2000) also
suggested that online learning could lead to decreased literacy through greater use of the
informal and abbreviated computer language, and be detrimental to human social
development.
Another equally serious outcome of current online learning practices that has received little
attention is the decreased opportunity for students to improve their oral communication skills.
Already poor oral communications skills have been identified as a major problem in society,
leading to the breakdown of personal and business relationships. Conversely, good oral
communication skills have been highlighted as a key factor for successful business
transactions. Unfortunately these skills are seen to be lacking in many employees and
graduates and many educationalists are trying to improve such skills, either by integrating
them into the overall curriculum, or by offering separate communication courses taught by
skilled communication lecturers.
Importance of oral communication skills
A number of surveys (of employer, students and academics) have identified that graduates
require specific skills in both oral and written communications (Hynes & Bhatia, 1996).
These findings are also reflected in other studies that emphasised the need for
communication, personal and interpersonal skills in graduates (Aziz, 1998; Dirks & Buzzard,
1997). In fact, several studies have identified communication skills as being the most
important criteria in job selection From an employer perspective, many authors believed oral
communication and presentation skills were the most important skill for career success (Aziz,
1998; Whetten & Cameron, 1995).
A survey of college graduates in the United States revealed a shared opinion with employers.
These students believed that both oral and written communication should be taught in more
detail in colleges (James, 1992) and they considered the ability to communicate to be very
important (Hynes & Bhatia, 1996). While students recognised the need to improve their
communication skills, particularly oral skills, Merrier & Dirks (1997) discovered that students
disliked oral communication, particularly speaking before a large group of strangers, and the
nervousness and pressure, anxiety and fear of failure associated with it. McDaniel and White
HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 635
(1993) and Burk (2001) found oral communication to be of greatest importance, and
unfortunately, the greatest student weakness.
Business schools, and academics have been criticised by many authors for their failure to
adequately prepare students for employment in business (Burk, 2001; Lamb, Shipp, &
Moncrief, 1995). They believed that too much emphasis was placed on specific course
content and quantitative analysis while insufficient attention was given to workplace skills
including communication. University teachers (Reid, 1994), professional associations (The
Mathew’s Report, 1990), the Australian Association of Graduate Employers (1995) and the
media have also criticised the inadequate communications skills of Australian university
graduates.
Several authors (Burk, 2001; Lamb et al., 1995) believed academics should make students
more aware of the attributes employers seek and assist them in developing their own
marketing strategy. The oral, written and nonverbal communication skills wanted by
employers are teachable skills. Courses need to develop more practical skills (speaking,
writing, organising, interpersonal skills) and concentrate less on imparting factual knowledge
(Shipp, Lamb, & Mokwa, 1993). Willmington (1989) stated that academics should ensure that
oral communication features predominantly in the curricula.
In addition, student participation through classroom discussion and presentations is an
essential component of many pedagogical strategies. Nunn (, 1996) reported that learning was
not a spectator sport and students needed to talk about what they were learning, write about it,
relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. Another study by McKeachie,
Pintrich, Lin, & Smith (1987), demonstrated that student participation in classroom
discussions increased their learning, motivation, and problem-solving ability. While written
communication skills can be improved with “chat” and bulletin board discussions, there is
little opportunity for students to improve their oral communication skills. There is a real
danger then with online learning that oral communication skills will be severely restricted and
may further increase the problem of poor communication skills in graduates.
The challenges of incorporating oral communication into online learning
environments
The challenge is to provide a student-centred environment, which would develop not only
deep learning (Knowlton, 2000), but also the social dimension of learning (Palloff & Pratt,
1999) while still improving students’ communication skills. Socialisation is particularly
important with online learning to alleviate dissonance caused through the lack of visual and
audible clues of the face-to-face class (Draves, 1999). Knowlton (2000) stressed the
importance of designing an online learning package that would replicate the interactive,
student-centred approach of the classroom.
Much of the research into online teaching and learning has concentrated on the use of
interactive multimedia by an individual, and written communications with other students and
the lecturer via chat rooms or bulletin boards. Many online courses use asynchronous
communication because of it greater flexibility, allowing students to access information
anytime-anyplace. Asynchronous delivery provides time for reflection and it lends itself to
situated learning where the student can relate discussion ideas to their own environment. It is
also cost effective (Mason, 1991) and easier to manage, particularly for groups of six to eight
(Simonson, 2000) and those in different time zones. However, asynchronous communication
HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 636
does not give students the opportunity to communicate with peers and supervisors in real
time, either through written or oral means. As much of our everyday communication is
spontaneous, graduates who were online students may be less experienced, and thus less
skilled in this area.
Synchronous interaction (for example, chat and desktop video systems) occurs in real time
and requires all people to be present, regardless of their physical location (Simonson, 2000).
Synchronous communication often requires preliminary training and discussions can dissolve
into “conversational chaos” if not properly managed (Murphy & Collins, 1997). However,
synchronous communication offers four main advantages. It is more motivating for learners
and can focus group energy, it helps to develop a sense of “social presence” and group
cohesion, provides quick feedback that supports decision making, and provides structure and
discipline to encourage students to keep up-to-date (Mason, 1991). A combination of delivery
systems can provide a better learning environment (Berge, 2000).
The ultimate challenge
If providing the opportunity for oral communication in online courses is a challenge, then the
ultimate challenge is creating a fully online course whose sole focus is teaching oral
communication. The School of Marketing Tourism and Leisure at Edith Cowan University in
Western Australia currently offers a fifteen-hour, five session, oral communication course
face-to-face on campus. An essential ingredient in the course design is that students develop
their skills through presentation exercises in front of their peers and a tutor. They receive
immediate feedback from the group and their presentations are videotaped to allow for selfcritique as well. This method has proven to be popular and is successful in reducing
participants’ speech anxiety (Tanian & James, 2001). The course has also been developed for
print-based external delivery. In this mode the students tape their presentations and circulate
them to other students and the tutor for critique. However this approach has not been as
effective in improving skills or reducing communication anxiety as presenting to a live
audience and receiving immediate coaching. The demand for online delivery offers an
opportunity (and a challenge) to develop a course which allows students to present and
receive immediate feedback from an audience.
The ideal scenario for an online oral communication course would be for students and
lecturers in different locations to communicate orally in real time. While a study conducted in
2000 by Clark (2001) used the Internet as a means of teaching oral communication students
were still required to attend class for their actual presentations. While this method may be
suited to those students who prefer a different delivery mode, it is not suitable for students
(particularly those living in remote locations) wanting to complete the entire course offcampus.
Technology may allow for audio transmission of oral presentations but the visual cues
provide 55% of the impact of a presentation (Whalen, 1995). As students must learn to
portray and interpret the subtle visual cues, computer video cameras would seem to be the
obvious solution. Little research has been published, however, on synchronous
videoconferencing as a means of communicating orally with other students and lecturers.
A trial is currently being conducted to develop an oral communication course using chat
rooms, bulletin boards (asynchronous) and synchronous computer videoconferencing that can
be studied entirely online. This should provide a better learning environment for students as
HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 637
well as develop their oral and written communication skills. Unfortunately, the bandwidth
required for the videoconferencing via home computers and modems is too large for clear
presentations at this stage. There could be problems with voice synchronisation, time delays
and computer breakdowns until the technology becomes more advanced.
Another constraint to providing an effective oral communication course online is equipment
availability. As the technology is relatively new, the cost of cameras may be prohibitive for
many students. An equipment loan system would not be financially viable for the institution
at this stage either. Computer capability is another constraint. This kind of software requires a
lot of memory and the modems need to be of a high speed to accommodate the large amount
of video data. The Internet itself is still not sufficiently reliable to ensure transmission at a
time when student presenters and their audience were ready.
For the purpose of this study, therefore, the student experience of completing the course at
home will be simulated using a local area network (LAN) on campus. Participating students
will be in teams of four. Five computers, with small digital video cameras attached will be set
up in five separate rooms so that each student can communicate via computer with the other
four. The fifth computer is for the lecturer. To simulate the remote locations of the ideal
scenario, the small number of students involved with the trial will not meet each other.
For each on-campus simulated session, the first student will give their presentation via the
camera, the second student in another room will facilitate the self- and peer-evaluation, and a
third student will evaluate the performance. The lecturer will give feedback via video when
required. Student roles will be rotated until all students present have the opportunity to
provide feedback and facilitate. A separate video camera and tripod will also be set up in each
room to record students’ actions, any signs of apprehension, and their interactions with the
computer.
The results of this simulated online trial will be compared to the existing face-to-face and
print-based distance education courses, for learning outcomesskills, reduction of
communication apprehension, willingness to communicateand student satisfaction. By
limiting the study to an on-campus laboratory-style simulation, the findings cannot be
generalised to all external situations. However, with the rapid rate of advancement in
computer technology many of the above constraints will be diminished. Equipment
availability, capability and reliability should be at a level to accommodate the general use of
this online program within two years.
References
Aziz, K. (1998). The key to perfect presentations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 30(6), 214-217.
Bailey, E. K., & Cotlar, M. (1994). Teaching via the Internet. Communication Education, 43, 184-193.
Berge, Z. L. (2000). Components of the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning:
Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom, 84, 23-28.
Blitzstein, A. (1980). What employers are seeking in business graduates. The Collegiate Forum, Winter(7).
Burk, J. (2001). Communication apprehension among Master's of Business Administration students:
Investigating a gap in communication education. Communication Education, 51(1), 51-58.
Carstens, R. W., & Worsfold, V. L. (2000). Epilogue: A cautionary note about online classrooms. In B. W.
Speck (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: Principles of effective teaching in the online
classroom (Vol. 84, pp. 83-88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dirks, R., & Buzzard, J. (1997). What CEOs expect of employees hired for international work. Business
Education Forum, 51, 3-7.
Draves, W. A. (1999). Why learning on line is totally different. Lifelong Learning Today, 3, 4-8.
HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 638
Hite, R. E., Bellizzi, J. A., & McKinley, J. W. (1987). Attitudes of marketing students with regard to
communication skills. Journal of Marketing Education, 9, 20-24.
Hynes, G. E., & Bhatia, V. (1996). Graduate business students' preferences for the managerial communication
course curriculum. Business Communication Quarterly, 59(2), 45-55.
James, M. L. (1992). Are we teaching what employers want? Business Education Forum, 46(4), 8-10.
Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Compbell, J., & Bannan Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and
computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education,
9(2), 7-26.
Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom. New directions for teaching and
learning: Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom, 84, 5-14.
Lamb, C. W., Shipp, S. H., & Moncrief, W. C. I. (1995). Integrating skills and content knowledge in the
marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 17, 10-19.
Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS, 1, 19.
McDaniel, S. W., & White, C. J. (1993). The quality of the academic preparation of undergraduate marketing
majors: An assessment by company recruiters. Marketing Educator Review, 3, 9-16.
McKeachie, W., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. A. (1987). Teaching and learning in the college classroom:
A review of the research literature. University of Michigan, IL: NCRIPTAL.
Merrier, P., & Dirks, R. (1997). Student attitudes towards written, oral and e-mail communication. Business
Communication Quarterly, 60(2), 89-99.
Murphy, K., & Collins, M. P. (1997). Reducing conversational chaos. Retrieved March 30, 1998, from the
World Wide Web:
Nunn, C. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results. Journal of
Higher Education, 67(3), 243-266.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the
online classroom.
Shipp, S. H., Lamb, C. W., & Mokwa, M. P. (1993). Developing and enhancing marketing student's skills:
Written and oral communication, intuition, creativity and computer usage. Marketing Education Review,
3, 2-8.
Simonson, M. (2000). Making decisions: The use of electronic technology in online classrooms. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning: Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom, 84, 29-34.
Tanian, S. M., & James, K. A. (2001). Putting theory into practice: Guiding marketing students to better
communication and collaborative skills. Proceedings of the ANZMAC 2001 Conference, Auckland, New
Zealand: Massey University. 3-6 December.
Terry, N. (2001). Assessing enrolment and attrition rates for the online MBA. Technical Horizons in Education
Journal, 28(7), 64-68.
Vician, C., & Brown, S. A. (2001). Re-engineering participation through on-line learning environments: An
examination of communication apprehension, choice and performance. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 42(1), 26-36.
Whalen, D. J. (1995). I see what you mean (Beta 3.0a ed.). Chicago. IL: Baby Bird Publications.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1995). Developing management skills (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper
Collins..
Copyright © 2002 Sherryl Tanian and Kandy James: The authors assign to HERDSA and educational non-profit institutions a
non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full
and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to HERDSA to publish this document
in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) on CD-ROM and in printed form within the HERDSA 2002 conference
proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.
HERDSA 2002 '( PAGE 639