|
MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching |
Vol.
6, No. 1, March 2010
|
Netiquette: Make
it Part of Your Syllabus
Alma Mintu-Wimsatt
Professor of Marketing
Texas A & M University – Commerce
Commerce, TX USA 75428
alma_wimsatt@tamu-commerce.edu
Courtney Kernek
Assistant Professor of
Marketing
Texas A & M University – Commerce
Commerce, TX
USA 75428
Hector R. Lozada
Associate Professor of Marketing
Seton Hall University
South Orange, NJ USA 07079
|
Abstract
Just like in face-to-face classes, students engaged
in online education communicate, participate and
interact via computer-mediated discussions (CMDs).
While online instructors presumably monitor the CMDs’
contents and undercurrents, it is recommended that
specific rules are set to ensure that students
comply with established online classroom etiquette
or “netiquette.” Developing netiquette rules at the
onset of the course and including these guidelines
in the students’ course syllabus can help avoid
future conflicts.
Keywords:
Discussions, Interactions, Online
course etiquette, Conflicts
|
Introduction
There appears to be a common misconception that
today’s rubric of distance education is similar to
that of a correspondence course. This could not be
further from the truth. In fact, the current
technology-mediated learning environments are
quite sophisticated. Students can be completely
engaged in the interaction, communication and
participation in a virtual classroom. They are
able to forge strong relationships and connections
with other online learners (Al-Shalchi 2009).
Indeed, Maurino (2006) has suggested that online
students tend to be more interactive than their
counterparts in the traditional face-to-face
classroom. Despite the lack of physical presence,
they still feel more connected, are more willing
to express non-popular opinions, and have more
avenues for continuous participation.
When online students actively participate in
classroom discussion and engage in idea exchange
dynamics, the computer-mediated discussion
(hereafter CMD) threads then become a forum for
diverse thought processes, opinions and
communication styles. Subsequently, this type of
forum becomes a critical element for online
learning and is consistent with Wells’ (2001)
point that, “knowing is largely carried out
through discourse” (p. 184).
Indeed, it has been these authors’ experience that
the discussion forum can be a critical learning
tool for online students. They can learn from each
others’ different experiences and knowledge as
evident in their discussion postings and online
chats. More importantly, the interaction among
students in terms of how they respond to each
other and the depth of their responses can
determine whether online discussions will flourish
(McCrory et al. 2008).
While discussions and/or discourse can be quite
productive to the learning experience, they can
also pose potential problems. This is because
disruptive and impolite behaviors, through posted
comments, discussion rebuttals or emails, can
occur at any time. As a result, the tone is set
for a dysfunctional online classroom setting (Shallert
et al. 2009). It is therefore incumbent on the
instructor to ensure that online discussion
etiquette is followed (Lujan 2008). Otherwise, the
dynamics necessary to provide healthy avenues for
online interaction may be damaged resulting in
students’ hesitation to participate in subsequent
discussions for fear of disparaging remarks or
further attacks (Hunt 2009).
Online Etiquette
Recently, a student in a graduate-level online
course sent the following e-mail to his
instructor:
… I have observed that some students' discussions
are at the line or crossing the line… I am
specifically referring to discussions which delve
into personal attacks or personal disagreements as
opposed to staying in the realm of healthy topical
discussions in which students may disagree about
the topical areas in appropriate academic banter…
Given the above student’s comments, what should
the instructor do? How can the instructor avoid
this situation in the future?
CMD allows students to seek and provide
information, provide social comments, share
experiences and present ideas (Schallert et al.
2009). Because students can be less inhibited in
an online classroom environment compared to
face-to-face settings (Suler 2004), demonstrating
nice or polite behaviors is critical. As Yang et
al. (2006) suggest, polite CMD environments foster
a sense of community among students and motivate
participation in the learning process.
Netiquette
Since discussions are instrumental to the success
of distance education (Al-Shalchi 2009), it is
important that healthy and productive interactive
environments are maintained. Otherwise, the
repercussions may lead to the general “failure” of
the discussion component of the entire course
and/or for the remainder of the course. Herein
lies the importance of having an established
classroom etiquette and/or protocol as well as
clearly defined consequences.
Netiquette,
or Internet etiquette, is a way of defining
professionalism through network communication.
Its derivation is based on the merging of the
words “network” as well as “etiquette;”
and, the concept is closely related to ethics
(Scheuermann & Taylor 1997). Netiquette refers to
a set of core rules that delineates what should
and should not be done with regards to online
communication in order to maintain common courtesy
(Shea 1994). In other words, in a classroom
setting, netiquette deals with the proper decorum
in online learning and CMD. For virtual classroom
purposes, netiquette deals with the notions of
respect, harmony and tolerance often manifested in
the tone or function of the interactions (Conrad
2002; Curtis and Lawson 2001; Brown 2001).
Researchers have suggested that online students
generally have a clear understanding of what is
within the realm of acceptable netiquette. There
is a prevailing environment of “groupness,”
“cohesiveness,” and “community” (Schallert et al.
2009), where students acknowledge the need to be
considerate of others’ feelings as well as follow
unwritten social “niceness” mores (Conrad 2002).
This is probably why the quality of and
participation in online discussion increases when
netiquette is observed by students in both
synchronous and asynchronous platforms (Schallert
et al. 2009; Buelens et al. 2007).
Playing Devil’s Advocate
Conrad (2002) concurs that online students
generally try to avoid conflict and try to “be
nice” to each other. However, she also mentions
that a “little controversy to stir things up” may
be inevitable (p.204). In these situations, it is
imperative that the instructor step in and rectify
any breach in conduct (Anderson et al. 2001).
Interestingly, Yang et al. (2006) reported that
when students get too absorbed with being “nice,”
learning is hampered or interrupted. In the
interest of preserving harmony, some students may
hesitate to express dissenting opinions or to
disrupt group cohesiveness (Yang et al. 2006).
Moreover, Buelens et al. (2007) found that
netiquette guidelines alone did not affect the
number of questions, arguments and ungrounded
statements posted by students. Instead, what
Buelens et al. (2007) found was that netiquette
guidelines in tandem with didactic [teaching]
guidelines were both necessary to improve the
quality of the group discussion.
Netiquette in the Classroom
A quick search on the Internet generated results
of several educational institutions providing
Netiquette policies, or what appears to be
derivations of it, in their respective school
websites. These policies were embedded within the
Student Code of Conduct, Academic Honesty Policy
or University/Student Code of Ethics. While this
approach is certainly acceptable, it begs the
question of how many students actually read, or
even glance over, the mandated student conduct
rules.
Therefore, it is imperative for instructors to
clearly define netiquette expectations and
consequences of any breach for each of their
courses as well as be actively engaged in CMDs.
Perhaps, this may be why Buelens et al. (2007)
suggested that in order for netiquette rules to be
effective, didactic guidelines have to be
presented as well.
As Ragan (2007) noted, these netiquette rules
should be distributed at the start of a course. In
fact, based on these authors’ personal
experiences, it is highly recommended that course
netiquette do’s and don’ts should be included in
the syllabus to further underscore the importance
of harmony and respect within the online learning
environment. When included in the syllabus,
students become more aware that the netiquette
rules ought to be viewed much like a course
requirement. By including these guidelines within
the course syllabus, a sense of importance and
urgency is conveyed. And, for practicality
purposes, this increases the likelihood that the
guidelines are actually read by the students.
Outlined below are some of the commonly utilized
Netiquette rules. Included in Appendix A is a
sub-section of a syllabus that includes Netiquette
guidelines for a graduate-level course.
-
Do not dominate any discussion. Give other
students the opportunity to join in the
discussion.
-
Do not use offensive language. Present ideas
appropriately.
-
Be cautious in using Internet language. For
example, do not capitalize all letters since
this suggests shouting.
-
Popular emoticons such as
J
or
L
can be helpful to convey your tone but do not
overdo or overuse them.
-
Avoid using vernacular and/or slang language.
This could possibly lead to misinterpretation.
-
Never make fun of someone’s ability to read or
write.
-
Share tips with other students.
-
Keep an “open-mind” and be willing to express
even your minority opinion. Minority opinions
have to be respected.
-
Think and edit before you push the “Send”
button.
-
Do not hesitate to ask for feedback.
-
Using humor is acceptable but be careful that it
is not misinterpreted. For example, are you
being humorous or sarcastic?
Conclusion
Online students can bring to the discussion table
diverse ideas that enhance the online learning
experience. Unfortunately, along with this
diversity comes the possibility that students may,
inadvertently or intentionally, breach netiquette
rules. In order to avoid any unpleasant situation,
it is highly recommended that instructors include
in their syllabus an outline detailing his/her
netiquette expectations. Whereas some educational
institutions may have broad policies regarding
off- and online classroom etiquette, it is prudent
for instructors to proactively deter future breach
of conduct by specifically indicating in their
syllabus the rules and the consequences. |
References
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison D. & Archer,
W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a
computer conferencing context. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2).
Al-Shalchi, O. (2009). The effectiveness and
development of online discussion. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5
(1), 104-108.
Brown, R. (2001). The process of
community-building in distance learning classes.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
5 (2), 18-35.
Buelens, H., Totte, N., Deketelaere, A &
Dierickx, K. (2007). Electronic discussion
forums in medical ethics education: The impact
of didactic guidelines and netiquette.
Medical Education, 41, 711-717.
Conrad, D. (2002). Inhibition, integrity and
etiquette among online learners: The art of
niceness. Distance Education, 23 (2),
197-212.
Curtis, D. & Lawson M. (2001). Exploring
collaborative online learning. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (1).
Hunt, J. (2009), Attitude is everything.
Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 26 (3),
19.
Lujan, J. (2008). Embracing cultural diversity
in online learning. Online Classroom,
February, 2-8.
McCrory, R., Putnam, R. & Jansen, A. (2008).
Interaction in online courses for teacher
education: Subject matter and pedagogy.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
16 (2), 155-180.
Maurino, P. (2006). Participation and online
interaction: F2F vs. online. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 10 (4), 257-266.
Ragan, L. (2007). Between the clicks.
Distance Education Report, 11 (22), 3-7.
Schallert, D, Chiang, Y., Park, Y.,
Jordan, M., Lee, Haekyung, L., Cheng, A., Chu,
H., Lee, S., Kim, T. & Song, K. (2009), Being
polite while fulfilling different discourse
function in online classroom discussions.
Computers and Education, 53, 713-725.
Scheuermann, L. & Taylor, G. (1997), Netiquette.
Internet Research, 7 (4), 269.
Shea, V. (2004). Netiquette. San Franciso:
Albion Books.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition
effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7
(3), 321-325.
Wells, G. (2001). The case of dialogic inquiry.
In G. Wells (Ed.), Action, Talk and Text:
Learning and Teaching Through Inquiry.
New York:
Teachers College Press.
Yang, M., Chen, Y., Kim, M., Chang, Y., Cheng,
A., Park, Y. (2006). Facilitating or limiting?
The role of politeness in how students
participate in an online classroom. Yearbook
of National
Reading
Conference,
55, 341-356.
APPENDIX A: Sample Netiquette Guideline
Netiquette
is a way of defining professionalism through
network communication. Students who violate
proper Netiquette will be administratively
dropped by Professor XXX from the course.
Here are some Student Guidelines for the class:
-
Do not dominate any discussion.
-
Do not use offensive language.
-
Never make fun of someone’s ability to read or
write.
-
Use simple English.
-
Use correct spelling and grammar.
-
Share tips with other students.
-
Keep an “open-mind” and be willing to express
even your minority opinion.
-
Be aware of the University’s Academic Honesty
Policy.
-
Think before you push the “Send” button.
-
Do not hesitate to ask for feedback.
-
When in doubt, always check with your
instructor for clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
|