Does it Really Matter? Using Virtual Office Hours to Enhance Student-Faculty Interaction

1. INTRODUCTION The use of Web 2.0 technologies in higher education is transforming learning and teaching in significant ways. Recent studies, for example, have examined the use of Web logs (Williams and Jacobs, 2004), wikis (Boulos, Maramba, and Wheeler, 2006), and instant messaging (Jeong, 2007; Contreras-Castillo, Perez-Fragoso, and Favela, 2006) in the classroom environment. Universities and colleges are rapidly embracing these new technologies and leveraging them to not only enhance their traditional curriculum but also to extend course offerings beyond the college campus. One key area where Web-based technologies are predicted to have a significant impact is in their ability to transform the way in which professors and students are able to communicate and interact with one another. The importance of informal interaction between faculty and students has been studied extensively in the literature (e.g., Iverson, Pascarella, and Terenzini, 1984; Kuh and Hu, 2001; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Halawah, 2006). Nadler and Nadler (2000) found that higher levels of informal contact with faculty correlated positively with students' academic performance, satisfaction with their college experience, and retention. Cox and Orehovec (2007) argued that even non-academic interactions between students and faculty have a positive impact by making students feel more valued and important, which, in turn, may contribute to higher levels of student persistence. Several researchers have noted the potential for computer-mediated communication (CMC) to increase the amount and frequency of interaction between students and their instructors (Chou, 2001; Klassen and Vogel, 2003; Cox and Orehovec, 2007). The literature on the use of Web-based communication tools, however, suggests there is still much to learn about its impact on traditional measures of student success in higher education. Most studies related to the utilization of Web-based technologies in general focus on the comparison of traditional versus online courses along a range of measures including student satisfaction, retention, and performance (Hannay and Newvine, 2006; Smart and Cappel, 2006; Oomen-Early et al., 2008). According to Wingard (2004), the use of Web-based technologies is actually more prevalent in the traditional classrooms as faculty increasingly utilize these technologies to enhance learning activities within the classroom and support communications outside the classroom. Web 2.0 technologies and their increasing use in higher education have presented educators with unique opportunities to further engage students in the learning environment using these new technologies. In this study, Web 2.0 technologies and applications are defined following the conceptualization by Tim O'Reilly who first articulated the term in 2005, and later defined Web 2.0 by characterizing the "Web as platform," and Web 2.0 applications that run on the platform as services that provide users control over their own content and facilitate collaboration between individuals and groups (O'Reilly, 2007, p. 19). Web 2.0 technologies are most often associated with social networking Websites such as MySpace (2009), Facebook (2009), and YouTube (2009), as well as applications such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts that are used to create and share information. A relatively new trend in higher education is use of Web 2.0 technologies to facilitate virtual office hours using "chat" or IM tools for both distance learning environments, and as a supplement to traditional pedagogical practices of face-to-face office hours (Myers, Bishop, Sayee, and Kelly, 2004; Hooper, Pollanen, and Teismann, 2006; Riley, 2007). Past studies have explored the used IM or "chat" functions in general (Hu, Wood, Smith, and Westbrook, 2004), and in organizational settings (Cameron and Webster, 2005; Quan-Haase, Cothrel, and Wellman, 2005), and found support for its role in facilitating social connectedness, and as an emerging collaborative communications tool, respectively. …

[1]  C. Carmean,et al.  Managing Courses Defining Learning: What Faculty, Students, and Administrators Want. , 2006 .

[2]  A. Astin Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. , 1999 .

[3]  J. Arbaugh How Instructor Immediacy Behaviors Affect Student Satisfaction and Learning in Web-Based Courses , 2001 .

[4]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Instant Messaging for Collaboration: A Case Study of a High-Tech Firm , 2005, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[5]  R. G. Wingard,et al.  Classroom Teaching Changes in Web-Enhanced Courses: A Multi-Institutional Study. , 2004 .

[6]  P. Terenzini,et al.  Informal faculty-student contact and commuter college freshmen , 1984 .

[7]  David S. Fusani “Extra‐class” communication: Frequency, immediacy, self‐disclosure, and satisfaction in student‐faculty interaction outside the classroom , 1994 .

[8]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[9]  Yi-Shun Wang,et al.  Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[10]  Ernest T. Pascarella Student-Faculty Informal Contact and College Outcomes , 1980 .

[11]  Lawrence B. Nadler,et al.  Out of class communication between faculty and students: A faculty perspective , 2000 .

[12]  Jane Webster,et al.  Unintended consequences of emerging communication technologies: Instant Messaging in the workplace , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  Jeff Hooper,et al.  Effective Online Office Hours in the Mathematical Sciences , 2006 .

[14]  Yifeng Hu,et al.  Friendships through IM: Examining the Relationship between Instant Messaging and Intimacy , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[15]  Wooseob Jeong in On-Site and Online Classes in Higher Education , 2007 .

[16]  Jean J. Endo,et al.  The effect of student-faculty interaction on students' educational outcomes , 1981 .

[17]  Martin Hall,et al.  Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[18]  Bradley E. Cox,et al.  Faculty-Student Interaction Outside the Classroom: A Typology from a Residential College , 2007 .

[19]  George D. Kuh The other Curriculum: Out-of-Class Experiences Associated with Student Learning and Personal Development , 1995 .

[20]  James J. Cappel,et al.  Students' Perceptions of Online Learning: A Comparative Study , 2006, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[21]  Marjorie A. Jaasma,et al.  The relationship of student‐faculty out‐of‐class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation , 1999 .

[22]  Shelia R. Cotten,et al.  Student–faculty Interactions: Dynamics and Determinants , 2006 .

[23]  S. Myers,et al.  Perceived Instructor In-class Communicative Behaviors As a Predictor of Student Participation in Out of Class Communication , 2005 .

[24]  Michael Bieber,et al.  Engaging Students with Constructivist Participatory Examinations in Asynchronous Learning Networks , 2008, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..

[25]  Jesús Favela,et al.  Assessing the use of instant messaging in online learning environments , 2006, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[26]  Jody Oomen-Early,et al.  Using Asynchronous Audio Communication (AAC) in the Online Classroom: A Comparative Study , 2008 .

[27]  Shouping Hu,et al.  The Effects of Student-Faculty Interaction In the 1990s , 2001 .

[28]  Catherine F. Brooks,et al.  Teacher Access and Mentoring Abilities: Predicting the Outcome Value of Extra Class Communication , 2003 .

[29]  D Mark Meyers,et al.  The Impact of Virtual Office Hours on In-Class Participation , 2003 .

[30]  Richard A. Schwier,et al.  The Interplay of Content and Community in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication: Virtual Communication in a Graduate Seminar , 2002 .

[31]  Measurement of Importance in a Student Satisfaction Questionnaire: Comparison of the Direct and Indirect Methods for Establishing Attribute Importance , 2004 .

[32]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  A field study of use of synchronous chat in online courses , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[33]  Johanna Klassen,et al.  New issues arising from E-education , 2003 .

[34]  C. Candace Chou,et al.  Formative evaluation of synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centered online course , 2001 .

[35]  Steve Wheeler,et al.  Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education , 2006, BMC medical education.

[36]  Ibtesam Halawah The Impact of Student-Faculty Informal Interpersonal Relationships on Intellectual and Personal Development. , 2006 .

[37]  Scott Nicholson Socialization in the "Virtual Hallway": Instant Messaging in the Asynchronous Web-based Distance Education Classroom , 2002 .