NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/bit/listserv/edtech/1759

Text File | 1992-09-03 | 9.4 KB | 235 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!BESTSD.SDSU.EDU!ATILARO
Approved-By:  "EDTECH Moderator" <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edtech
Approved: [e-mail]
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:34:06 EDT
Sender:       "EDTECH - Educational Technology" <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      SURVEY RESULTS - PART II
Lines: 222

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EDTECH LISTSERV STUDY

  The following recommendations are based on the data
collected from the on-line questionnaire, follow-up
telephone interviews and on-line comments from
participants, and a brief interview with one of the
system managers who works with SDSU's VAX system.

Recommendations for Technical Support Personnel:

#1:  Install 'filtering' software or interfaces on
computer systems to reduce the frustration and time
involved in sorting through the large volumes of
incoming e-mail.

  Rationale:  This topic seemed to be a universal one.
Individuals at institutions that already have filtering
software available or with an account on a system having
UseNet access expressed how beneficial it was.  For
those without any sorting mechanism or keyword search
capability, one of their major frustrations was being
overwhelmed by incoming e-mail.  Since the volume of
information is increasing exponentially, the need for
this type of software will become even more critical in
the future.

#2:  Provide high-quality support and/or training for
end users, especially novices new to the concept of CMC.

  Rationale:  For novices new to the system, inventing
the wheel all over again can be a lonely place.  Since
"technophobia" also enters the picture, new users need
guidance in the beginning stages.  Also, since every new
gadget on the system increases the workload of technical
support personnel -- usually without parallel
compensation -- providing support to end users when
first learning may pay off in future dividends, i.e.,
informed computer users may be better able to solve some
of their own problems.

#3:  Communicate with EdTech departments on-site and
inform them about the availability of the ET LS.  Prior
to that, however, consider routing the ET LS to a single
address/conference on the system to reduce the amount of
disk space used.

  Rationale:  Many users commented that "lack of
awareness" was one of the obstacles to increased usage
of the ET LS.  Also, for efficient use of the computer
system, instead of each individual receiving separate
e-mail from the Moderator of the ET LS, one central
storage area could be accessed by all users.

Recommendations for the EdTech ListServ Moderator:

#1:  Develop guidelines or an established convention for
the "Subject" line to allow subscribers to quickly scan
incoming e-mail and determine pertinent topics of
interest.

  Rationale:  One respondent commented that the Moderator
of the ET LS is doing a superb job and that the ET LS
is one of the better lists.  However, because so much
mail is generated and since so many end users lack
adequate 'filtering' softare, being able to quickly scan
topics of interest is critical.

#2:  Conduct a survey to see who is subscribing to the
list and what their goals are for accessing the list.

  Rationale:  A collateral purpose of this study was to
lay the foundation for others to "carry the ball and run
with it".  Since this surveyor was a novice at
conducting surveys, information gleaned from respondents
was less than what it could have been.  However, data
seemed to indicate that a large number of subscribers are
technical support personnel trying to keep up-to-date on
Educational Technology and technology in general.  In
order for the ET LS to serve the purposes of its users,
the type of subscribers and their goals for using the
list must be determined.

#3:  Distribute an announcement on the ET LS with the
names of other discussion forums or bulletin boards for
individuals interested in highly technical topics.

  Rationale:  Although sharing of "lessons learned" is a
major value of the ET LS, one individual suggested that
highly technical discussions of hardware and software
could better be handled by ListServs dedicated to that
purpose -- or by technical support staff at subscribers'
own institutions.

Recommendations for Educational Technology Departments:

#1:  Consider expanding usage of the ET LS to include as
many students and faculty as possible.

  Rationale:  The importance of computer-mediated
communication must not be ignored.  For students and
faculty in the field, the difficulty of keeping up-to-
date could be mollified by access to a ListServ
specifically dedicated to Educational Technology issues
and concerns.  Since there were only 4 college students
out of a sample size of 106, that would seem to indicate
that fewer than 4% of the subscribers to the ET LS are
students.  As one individual stated, "The use of multi-
media on broadband mediated communications is going to
have a profound impact on American education."  Since
that individual was the one who regularly accesses 100
ListServs, the surveyor assumed his opinion was based on
knowledge.

#2:  Provide students with guidance and training while
they are adjusting to the concept of CMC.

  Rationale:  Studies have been conducted indicating the
need for hand-holding when novices are first learning to
use e-mail systems.  In order for students to derive the
benefits of the ET LS, they have to use it at more than
a minimal level.

#3:  Conduct an informational campaign in EdTech
departments and within professional organizations such
as ASTD, NSPI, and AECT to inform colleagues of the
availability of the ET LS.

  Rationale:  As one interviewee stated, "The List is
only as good as the participants using it."  To improve
the quality of information available on the ET LS,
professionals in the field need to be encouraged to
become subscribers.

#4:  Communicate with on-site technical support staff,
not only for training and problem-solving, but for
adequate hardware and software.  (This could include
installing 'filtering' software and PC interfaces or
working out a conferencing system to save disk space.)

  Rationale:  Technical support staff can provide the
kind of training and assistance needed to handle
problems.  Also, respondents indicated the need for PC
interfaces or 'filtering' software to allow for the
quick scanning of incoming e-mail.  Since respondents
indicated one of the major obstacles was "computer
hardware" and "networking" problems, improved
communication of needs would be a way to eliminate those
obstacles.

Recommendations for End Users:

#1:  Experiment with the discussion forum by posting a
query or responding to one.

  Rationale:  Although being a 'silent' observer
("lurker") has benefits, as with anything else, the
amount of benefit is directly proportional to the degree
of effort expended.  There are many friendly, helpful
individuals using the list who have a lot of good
advice.  For instance, out of the replies received by
those who posted queries on the ET LS, approximately 65%
were rated "good" and an additional 24% were rated
"fair".

#2:  Contact your institution's technical support
personnel and/or administration to let them know your
need for 'filtering' software or PC interfaces or to
communicate with them about other obstacles.

  Rationale:  Unless obstacles are removed, full benefit
is impossible.  Since the problem of information
overload was reiterated by numerous respondents and
interviewees, 'filtering' software seems to be a top
priority issue.

Recommendations for Future On-Line Surveys:

#1:  Use resource personnel at your institution to help
design the survey, plus conduct a thorough pilot test.

  Rationale:  As a novice, this surveyor lacked the
expertise to conduct a scientifically valid and
reliable survey and did not make full use of available
resource personnel.  After respondents started providing
feedback on the difficulty of answering some of the
questions and as responses were tallied, it become
apparent that some questions were poorly constructed
and gave less-than-adequate data.

#2:  Learn commands necessary to set up distribution
lists to ease the burden of sending questionnaires,
follow-up reminders, thank you notes, etc., to respondents.

  Rationale:  A lot of unnecessary energy was expended
by this surveyor because of unfamiliarity with the tool.
Sending an on-line questionnaire involves at least
three, and in many cases, four different communications
with each individual in the sample group.

#3:  Include clear and simple instructions on how to
fill out the on-line questionnaire and send it back.

  Rationale:  Since the total population of subscribers
consists of regular contributors, "lurkers", and those
in-between, the sample may become biased if the only
respondents are those sophisticated enough to return the
survey form.

#4:  Carefully select a specific sample and avoid
addressing the entire ET LS population.

  Rationale:  During the follow-up phone survey,
interviewees were asked how they felt about
participating in this on-line survey.  One commented,
"Part of me wondered if I had time; on the other hand,
somebody's doing research, so let's support it."  With
the growth of CMC, the need for adequate data from
studies will increase.  However, in order to continue
receiving the willing participation of respondents, the
number of surveys foisted upon subscribers must be kept
to a minimum.
                          [e-mail]