Incorporating web-assisted instruction into the business communication curriculum.
Sigmar, Lucia S. ; Cooper, Tab W.
INTRODUCTION
We often judge the intelligence of people by observing how they use
language. Aside from content knowledge, it is often the first basis on
which personal and professional competence is determined. Our
students' success in both an academic and professional context
depends on their understanding of, conformity to, and competence in the
social conventions of language usage.
And yet, few of us would agree that teaching grammar and
fundamental writing skills are a part of the business communication
curriculum. We expect our students to have mastered the basics of
writing by the time they arrive in our classrooms. The reality, however,
is that our students rarely come to us prepared to begin learning the
principles of business communication (content knowledge). We spend
valuable instructional time and energy in correcting grammar and usage
in an effort to reach the stage where we can teach them to analyze
communication scenarios and strategically plan and execute a business
message.
How then can we then bring our students up to speed quickly in the
area of grammar and usage so that we can concentrate our efforts in
teaching the principles behind effective business communication? This
study investigates the use of online writing software as a partial means
of assessing student progress in writing skill development, and further,
its use as a supplemental tool in the business communication classroom
to review and to develop grammar, punctuation, spelling, word choice,
sentence structure, and paragraph development skills.
Following a semester of Web-assisted writing instruction during the
spring of 2008, we surveyed 155 students at an AACSB-accredited
university to determine the impact of the instruction in 1) improving
the students' perception of the quality of their business writing,
2) allowing more classroom time for writing practice and the development
of business messages, and 3) improving student satisfaction with and
confidence in the writing process.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Web-based or online instruction has been a popular topic of
pedagogical inquiry over recent years, and its merits have been debated
by scholars who, on the one hand, praise its ability to engage learners
without the social censures of age, gender, race, or underdeveloped
interpersonal skills like shyness (Bowman, 2001) and to reach
individuals who might not have access to learning opportunities in
higher education otherwise ( McEwen, 2001). Other critics, however,
recognize that distance learning can be socially isolating for students
(Dyrud, 2000). They maintain that distance learners are perhaps more
likely to disengage or drop out more easily than traditional students
(Worley, 2000), or that such students lack sufficient motivation to
complete online courses (Dyrud, 2000; LaRose and Whitten, 2000).
Distance learning can also fail to address apprehension about
communicating (Wardrope, 2001) and the oral and non-verbal communication
skills that are essential to social and business success.
In light of these limitations, however, many educators recommend
Web-based instruction as a supplemental tool, rather than a replacement
for traditional teaching methods. McEwen calls this blending of online
and traditional instruction, Web-assisted instruction, and maintains
that it "offers a richer learning environment than either one
offered alone" (McEwen, p. 103).
The topic of Web-assisted instruction assumes various forms. Sauer
and Walker, for example, compare improvement in writing skills between
students enrolled in a traditional classroom course in business
communication and students enrolled in a hybrid course using Blackboard
course management software to promote communication and foster active
learning. Pre- and post-assessment surveys indicate that students
enrolled in the online hybrid business communication course show a
higher level of active learning than the students in the traditional
course. Further, the hybrid students' improvement in writing was
just as significant as the traditional classroom students' writing
improvement as long as the online instruction addressed their particular
needs (2004). Other inquiries (Krause, 2006) are aimed primarily at
technological innovation or instructional design (Cook, 2000). Still
other educators are concerned with the aspects of interactivity
(Mabrito, Dyrud, & Worley, 2001) in online classrooms or with the
development of technology-driven processes and Web-based delivery
systems for business writing (Karr, 2001).
Our inquiry, however, has a more pragmatic focus. We incorporate
Web-assisted instruction in the business communication classroom using
online writing software as a partial means of quickly improving basic
writing skills. Further, we investigate its impact on traditional
pedagogical methods, student perception of the quality of their business
writing, and their satisfaction with and confidence in the writing
process after using the writing software.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ONLINE WRITING SOFTWARE
This study piloted an online writing software package called
Writer's Workout sold by the publisher of the course textbook,
McGraw-Hill. This interactive teaching/learning resource focuses on the
skills and knowledge that are essential in speaking and writing English
with clarity and coherence. The software measures skills competency in
nine primary areas: grammar, punctuation, spelling, word choice,
sentence structure, paragraph development, presenting, people skills,
and persuasion. Students in this study were not required to complete the
latter three and focused only on the skills sets directly related to the
writing process.
The software is designed to assess individual student competencies
in each of these areas, and further identifies deficiencies in which the
student needs additional instruction. Mini-lessons in these problem
areas are then sent to a customized Workout Log that the student
completes independently.
Students purchased the software for a nominal fee ($7-8) as a
supplemental tool at the University Bookstore. The students were asked
to complete the online writing software assignment prior to mid-term,
after which the majority of writing assignments were assigned. After
completion of the online writing software and other writing assignments,
students took a survey which measured the demographic composition of the
group, their previous writing experience, their perception of the
quality of their business writing, and their satisfaction with and
confidence in the writing process after using the writing software.
THE ASSIGNMENT
Students were first asked to complete an overall assessment which
then determined what specific mini-lessons each student needed to
address in his/her Workout Log. Credit for these mini-lessons was given
only if they performed at 100% on each lesson. Students were allowed to
re-take these mini-lessons as many times as necessary to complete this
assignment before midterm. Most of the students were able to complete
the assignment in less than ten hours as Figure 1 illustrates.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION
This study surveyed seven sections of a required, writing-enhanced
course in business communication with a total enrollment of 175 students
at an AACSB-accredited university during the spring semester of 2008.
Over ninety percent (92.9%) of these students were required to take the
course in partial fulfillment of a business degree program. Of the 175
students enrolled in these sections, 155 completed the survey--a
completion rate of 88.6%. Those who did not complete the survey had
stopped attending class or were absent on the day the survey was given.
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Of the 155 students who participated in the survey, 59.9% were
male, and 40.5% were female (three students did not respond to this
question). The majority of these students were classified as juniors and
seniors (66.5% and 26.5% respectively); 7.1% were sophomores. Of the
students surveyed, 81.3% were college age (18-22); 15.5% were between
23-27 years of age; and 3.1% were non-traditional students. Most of the
students (76.8%) lived locally within a ten-mile radius of the
university; the remaining 23.2% of students commuted. In addition to
attending school, most of the students surveyed (73.5%) held full or
part-time jobs; 26.5% were full-time students. Only 3.8% of the total
number of students surveyed attended school on a part-time basis. Most
of the students (92.9%) were single while 7.1% reported being in a
household with spouse and/or dependents. Of the students surveyed, 66%
were white, non-Hispanic, 17% were black, non-Hispanic, and 14.4% were
Hispanic or Latino; 2.7% classified themselves as other.
WRITING EXPERIENCE
We were interested in knowing how much writing instruction the
students had prior to enrolling in the required business communication
course. Half of the students surveyed (50.3%) had been exposed to
writing instruction within the last two years. Nearly a third (29.7%) of
the surveyed students reported that they had taken a writing course
within the last year while a fifth (20%) of students reported that it
had been three or more years since their last writing course. Further,
the majority of students in this study (81.9%) had taken the expected
curriculum hours in college writing courses (freshman block) or had
taken additional courses in writing prior to enrolling in the business
communication course. Of those students surveyed, 41.3% reported having
taken 4-6 hours of composition or writing at the college level while
27.7% reported having taken 7-9 hours, and 12.9% of students reported
having taken more than 10 hours at the college level. Slightly less than
20 % of students (18.1%) reported taking only 0-3 hours of writing at
the college level. As the majority of our business students take the
required business communication course in their junior year of college,
these percentages are consistent with the standard academic practice of
taking composition courses during the freshman year.
The majority of these students (91%) indicated excellent and above
average performance in their previous writing courses. Of those students
surveyed, 38.1% of students reported making A's in previous
composition or writing courses, 52.9% of students reported B's, and
the remaining 9% reported C's. However, despite the fact that the
majority of these students had been exposed to writing experience in the
last two years and had achieved better-than-average performance in these
courses, well over one-third (38%) of students surveyed reported that
the material covered in the online writing software program was new to
them.
OVERALL FINDINGS
What impact, if any, did the online writing software have on the
students? Surprisingly, our overall findings were strongly influenced by
the students' ability to navigate the online writing software (Q
16). On a scale of 1 to 10, students rated the ease of navigation a 5.3,
about average when compared to other websites. We assumed that our
tech-savvy students would have no difficulty in navigating the software
with minimum instruction, but our findings suggest that time for
additional instruction be made available to those students who need it
in order to optimize the Web-assisted training for those individuals.
Predictably perhaps, those students who took over 20 hours (13.5%)
to complete the assignment also experienced the most problems with
navigation, and of those students who experienced problems with
navigation, 70% said their writing did not improve. Our recommendations
that follow our findings address ways of dealing with this issue. In
this discussion of our research findings, therefore, we have divided the
responses into two categories: responses from those students who found
the software easy to navigate, and responses from those students who
found the software difficult to navigate.
Our first research question addressed the students' perception
of their own writing. Students were asked whether their writing had
improved in six separate writing areas as a result of using the online
writing software: grammar, punctuation, spelling, word choice, sentence
structure, and paragraph development.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1
Does the use of online writing software result in significant
improvement in the students' perception of the quality of their
business writing?
Students were asked to rate on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 (one being
the lowest and ten being the highest) how significantly they felt their
writing had improved as a result of using the online writing software
(Q24). Those students who found the software easy to navigate saw a
noticeable improvement (5.50) versus those students who found the
software difficult to navigate and only saw some improvement (3.83) as
illustrated in Figure 2.
Students were also asked whether or not the quality of their
writing improved as a result of using the online software (Q 27). Over
half of the students surveyed (64.5 %) responded positively.
Significantly, of those students who found the software easy to
navigate, 85.1% felt that the quality of their writing had improved by
using the online writing software, versus 45.1 % of those students who
found the software difficult to navigate.
When asked which method of instruction they preferred for the
grammar and basic writing component of the course (Q 17), 56.8% of
students overall indicated that they preferred the online writing
software. But of those students who found the navigation easy, over
three-fourths (76.6%) indicated that they preferred the online method.
Not surprisingly, those students who found the software difficult to
navigate, (66.7%) preferred lecture over online instruction as seen in
Figure 3.
Further, when asked which method of instruction they preferred for
each area of concentration, over half of students surveyed indicated
that grammar, punctuation, spelling, word choice, and sentence structure
were effectively addressed by the online software. However, 51.6% still
preferred instructor-student interaction when learning paragraph
development. Such findings suggest what teachers of writing have known
for years. Individualized instruction is perhaps the best method for
teaching higher-level writing skills.
RESEARCH QUESTION 2
Did the students' satisfaction and confidence in their writing
and the writing process improve as a result of the online writing
software training?
When asked (Q25) whether or not their satisfaction with writing and
with the writing process had improved as a result of using the online
writing software, 80.9% of students who found navigation easy responded
affirmatively, as opposed to only 33.3% of students who found the
software navigation difficult (see Figure 4).
When asked to rate the significance of their satisfaction ( Q26) on
a Likert scale of 1 to 10 (one being the lowest and ten being the
highest), the overall rating of 4.79 ranged between somewhat significant
and very significant. Even more impressive, however, Figure 5 shows the
wide differences in student satisfaction in their writing between those
who found the software easy to navigate (6.10) and those who found the
software difficult to navigate (2.76).
When asked if they would recommend using online writing software as
a supplemental tool in the business communication classroom, 59.4%
overall said yes (Q28). More significantly, however, Figure 6
illustrates that 80.9% of students who had few problems with navigation
recommend using the supplemental online writing software in
writing-intensive courses.
We also asked students how much more confident they felt in each of
the areas of concentration after using the online writing software (Q
20). Using a Likert scale of 1 to 9 with one being low and 9 being high,
overall, students rated their confidence in all areas as moderately
confident following their workouts: grammar (5.34); punctuation (5.50);
spelling (5.6); word choice (5.52); sentence structure (5.39); paragraph
development (5.3). Figure 7 indicates an even higher level of confidence
among those students who found software navigation easy, and a lower
confidence level among students who found the navigation difficult.
When we asked the students if they had applied the information they
had learned to their writing assignments (Q 22), we saw again a
measurable difference among those students who found software navigation
easy, and among students who found the navigation difficult as
illustrated in Figure 8. Our overall findings, however, were positive
with 82.6% of students indicating that they had been able to apply the
grammar skills and 82.6% indicating that they had been able to apply
punctuation skills. About 75% of students said they had applied spelling
and word choice skills to other assignments and a slightly higher
percentage of students had applied sentence structure (79.4%) and
paragraph development skills (78.1%) to other writing assignments.
We also wanted to know if the students felt that the software
accurately assessed their writing skills (Q 23). Again, our findings
depended on whether or not the students had difficulty navigating the
software. Generally, the higher ratings on the software's ability
to accurately assess student competency in each of the areas
(fluctuating between 75-83%), were reported by students who found the
software navigation easy as seen in Figure 9. In general, however, most
students felt that the software assessment was accurate with an overall
rating of 66.5% in grammar, a 64.5% rating in punctuation, a 65.8%
rating in spelling. A 64% rating in word choice, a 66.5% rating in
sentence structure, and a 61.9% rating in paragraph development.
RESEARCH QUESTION 3
Does the use of online writing software allow more classroom time
for writing practice and the development of business messages?
Online writing software allows students to work independently and
targets only those areas in which each individual needs additional
instruction or review. We spent less class time addressing fundamental
skills in grammar, punctuation, spelling, word choice, and sentence
structure, and were able to focus more on the strategy and development
of business messages in direct and indirect inquiries, persuasive
requests, and report writing.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Students who have weak grammar and technical skills tend to be less
than enthusiastic about writing and the writing process for fear of
making mistakes. This fear, along with their inner critic (worse than
any instructor they might encounter at the college level), often
inhibits their ability to engage in and produce an assignment.
In this study, students who initially focused on correcting their
grammar and style issues at their own pace with the online writing
software found that they were better prepared to address strategy and
development of their business messages later in the course. They were
also less inhibited about the writing process. Our findings indicate
that their satisfaction with and confidence in the writing process had
improved as a result of using the Web-based writing instruction. In
addition, we found that their perception of the quality of their writing
had improved.
The instructors in this study spent less class time addressing
fundamental writing skills and were able to focus more on the strategy
and development of business communication. Although this study did not
measure the pre- and post-training quality of the student writing, the
instructors generally saw an improvement in the technical aspects of
writing that the students submitted for evaluation. Our upcoming study
in error etiology will explore in more detail the quality of the writing
submitted for evaluation before and after students complete the online
writing software assignment.
Our findings clearly indicate that the students' ability to
navigate of the software is essential in achieving a higher level of
student performance and satisfaction with their writing and with the
writing process. Despite their familiarity with various types of
software and computer use, our students are not necessarily proficient
in navigation nor were they particularly motivated to spend time
troubleshooting the software. Our students rated our 30-minute
instruction as moderate (3.31 on a scale of 5.0). Consequently, we
recommend the following:
* Devote at least one class session and short follow-up sessions to
familiarize students with software navigation and overall assessment;
* Set deadlines for the completion of each skill section and
require 100% completion score on each mini-lesson;
* Assign Web-based instruction during the first half of the
semester so that students are better prepared for graded writing
assignments later in the course.
In closing, composition research indicates that students are
actually more linguistically competent than we may think. John C. Bean
(2001) offers three signs of what he terms encouraging competence
beneath our students' mangled prose. First, many student errors are
simply the result of careless editing and proofreading. Haswell's
(1983) system of minimal marking (marking an X in the margin next to
lines that contain the errors) encourages students to find and correct
approximately 60 percent of their own sentence errors (comma splices,
dangling modifiers, misspellings, etc.). Second, Bean recommends having
the students read their drafts aloud citing Bartholomae's (1980)
research which indicates that oral rendering of writing allows students
to unconsciously correct most of their written errors. And finally,
because student errors are classifiable and systematic (Shaughnessy,
1977), we can help students understand their causes and teach the
specific skills necessary to overcome repetitive errors (Bean, 2001).
The skill-specific, individualized nature of Web-based writing
instruction can help students identify and overcome their technical
weaknesses so that they can become competent in the social conventions
of language usage and use language in appropriate business contexts.
REFERENCES
Bartholomae, D. (1980). The study of error. College Composition and
Communication, 31(3), 253-269.
Bean, J. C. (2001). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to
integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the
classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowman, J. (2001). The third wave: Swimming against the tide.
Business Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 87-92.
Cook, K. (June 2000). Online professional communication: Pedagogy,
instructional design, and student preference in Internet-based distance
education. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 106-110.
Dyrud, M. A. (2000). The third wave: A position paper. Business
Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 93-103.
Haswell, R. H. (1983). Minimal marking. College English, 45(6),
600-604.
Karr, S. (June 2001). Learning business writing online. Financial
Executive, 17(4), 64.
Krause, K. (2006). Supporting first-year writing development
online. The Journal of General Education, 55(3-4), 201-220.
LaRose, R. & Whitten F. (2000). Rethinking instructional
immediacy for Web courses: A social cognitive exploration. Communication
Education, 49, 320-338.
Mabrito, M. & Dyrud, Marilyn & Worley, R. Facilitating
interactivity in an online business writing classroom. Business
Communication Quarterly, 64(3), 81-86.
McEwen, B.C. (2001). Web-assisted and online learning. Business
Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 98-103.
Sauer, D. & Walker, R. (December 2004). A comparison of
traditional and technology-assisted instructional methods in the
business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly,
67(4), 430-443.
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the
teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wardrope, W. J. (2001). A communication-based response to distance
learning in business communication. Business Communication Quarterly,
64(2), 92-97.
Worley, R.B. (2000). The medium is not the message. Business
Communication Quarterly, 3(3), 93-103.
Lucia S. Sigmar, Sam Houston State University
Tab W. Cooper, Sam Houston State University
Figure 1:. Number of Hours to Complete Online Writing
Skills Assignment
0-5 Hours 18%
1-10 Hours 41%
11-15 Hours 17%
16-20 Hours 10%
21-25 Hours 6%
Over 25 Hours 8%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Figure 2:. Significance of writing improvement as
a result of using online writing software.
EASY Noticeable improvement 5.50
DIFFICULT Some improvement 3.83
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 3: Preferred method of instruction for grammar
and writing skills component of course.
ONLINE LECTURE
EASY 76.6% 23.4%
DIFFICULT 33.3% 66.7%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 4: Improvement in writing and with the writing
process after online writing software
Yes No
EASY 80.9% 19.1%
DIFFICULT 33.3% 66.7%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 5:. Significance of student satisfaction as
a result of using the online writing software.
Likert Scale
EASY 6.10
DIFFICULT 2.76
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 6: Percentage of students recommending using online
writing software as a supplemental instruction
tool in writing-intensive courses.
Percentage Yes No No Opinion
DIFFICULT 37.3% 41.2% 21.6%
EASY 80.9% 8.5% 10.6%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 7: Student confidence in writing specific areas
after writing software training
Likert Scale DIFFICULT EASY
Grammar 4.00 6.28
Punctuation 4.10 6.43
Spelling 3.98 6.66
Word Choice 4.14 6.64
Sentence Structure 4.12 6.49
Paragraph Development 4.10 6.28
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 8: Application of information learned to
other writing assignments.
Likert Scale DIFFICULT EASY
Grammar 74.5% 93.6%
Punctuation 74.5% 89.4%
Spelling 58.8% 89.4%
Word Choice 60.8% 87.2%
Sentence Structure 66.7% 87.2%
Paragraph Development 64.7% 89.4%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 9: Accuracy of skills assessment in
evaluating individual writing skills.
Likert Scale DIFFICULT EASY
Grammar 43.1% 80.9%
Punctuation 41.2% 74.5%
Spelling 41.2% 80.9%
Word Choice 47.1% 80.9%
Sentence Structure 45.1% 83.0%
Paragraph Development 37.3% 78.7%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
