0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

A Hybrid and Novel Approach to Teaching Computer Programming in MIS Curriculum

Table 15. Performance outcomes by gender

Performance measure	Male	Female	F	p
Final course GPA	2.98	3.04	0.19	.66
Assignment 1	95.36	95.95	0.07	.79
Assignment 2	87.26	90.29	1.30	.26
Assignment 3	87.37	90.09	0.72	.40
Assignment 4	79.38	83.96	1.55	.21
Assignment 5	63.14	64.17	0.03	.87
Assignment 6	43.49	41.79	0.06	.81

Programming Experience

To detect statistically significant differences on performance based on prior programming experience, one-way ANOVAs were constructed for numeric grades on each assignment, the level of satisfaction subscale, and the final grade in the course with prior programming experience as a between-subjectscondition.Again,nostatistically

Table 16. Performance outcomes by prior programming experience

Performance measure	Prior	No prior	F	p
Final course GPA	3.04	3.08	0.30	.59
Assignment 1	93.89	96.95	2.15	.14
Assignment 2	89.71	86.76	1.31	.25
Assignment 3	88.57	88.43	0.00	.96
Assignment 4	81.83	80.18	0.23	.64
Assignment 5	65.98	61.53	0.59	.44
Assignment 6	42.11	44.44	0.13	.72

significant differences were detected as shown in Table 16.

Prior programming was also not statistically significant when examining the satisfaction subscaleF(1,231)=1.01,p=.317.Thoseindividualswith priorprogrammingexperiencereportedasatisfaction scale of .676 (SD=.128), while those without reported .703 (SD=.127).Again,bothfindingsare positive in that they suggest the course content is appropriate for both novices and intermediate students.Bothstudentsperformednearlythesame and were equally satisfied.

Employment Status

To detect statistically significant differences on performance and satisfaction among students employed full-time, part-time, or unemployed, one-way ANOVAs were constructed for numeric grades on each assignment, the level of satisfaction subscale, and the final grade in the course with employment-status serving as a betweensubject condition. This demographic resulted in a statisticallysignificantdifferenceonAssignment

2—F(1,243)= 4.36, p=.01—in favor of full-time employed students. All other measures were not significant, as shown in Table 17.

Onemightobservemorevariationinthefinal course grade based on employment status as it approachessignificancep=.07.Unemployedstudents appeartoachieveahigherfinalcoursegradethan those students that are currently employed. This isalogicalfindinginthatitsuggestsunemployed

Table 17. Performance outcomes by employment status

Performance measure	Unemployed	Part-time	Full-time	F	p
Final course GPA	3.19	3.03	2.82	2.72	.07
Assignment 1	95.49	95.76	95.79	0.01	.99
Assignment 2	88.15	84.87	92.95	4.36	.01
Assignment 3	86.22	87.84	87.79	0.11	.90
Assignment 4	81.86	80.60	81.51	0.05	.95
Assignment 5	61.17	70.66	63.35	1.07	.34
Assignment 6	47.85	52.51	45.99	0.42	.66

A Hybrid and Novel Approach to Teaching Computer Programming in MIS Curriculum

students,perhaps,havemoretimetodevotetotheir academics. Employment status was not statisticallysignificantwhenexaminingthesatisfaction subscale F(1,231)=0.07, p=.93, indicating both employed and unemployed students had a similar degree of satisfaction with the course.

Computer Programming Interest

Thefinalcoursegradeandsatisfactionsubscales were correlated with the degree of a student’s interest in computer programming. There is a statisticallysignificant,positivecorrelation(r=.18, p=.004) between the degree of interest in computer programming and overall performance and satisfaction (r=.16, p=.014) in the course. This is an expected outcome in that one would anticipate those individuals more interested in the content domain would achieve better performance and be more satisfied with the course.

Satisfaction and Performance

The final course grade and the satisfaction subscale mildly correlated (r=.15, p=0.05). Although statistically insignificant, the low correlation between the instrument and final course grade was somewhat surprising. One explanation could be a result of expectations. At the beginning of the Spring and Fall 2005-06 semesters, students were surveyed regarding their targeted course grades. The results were that 43% were targeting As, 26% were targeting Bs, and 31% were targeting Cs. Since the instrument was administered at the end of the academic semester, at a time when most students had a good estimate of their final grade, it is plausible that satisfaction was related toperformancerelativetotargetgrade,ratherthan relative to actual grade. The results also provide strong evidence that students were willing to provide critical feedback about the course that was independent of their grade.

discussion

What can be concluded from this course and analysis, and what will be contributed to the best practices for computer programming instruction? The chapter has illustrated a number of challenges facing MIS computer programming instruction, and two key opportunities to impact MIS research and practice: the integration of ICT for instructional purposes, and the development, use, and validation of instruments designed to monitor our courses.

Of course, the results of this analysis must be interpretedinlightofthelimitations.Thisanalysis has been conducted using data that were collected duringdifferentacademicsemesters.Technology, students, and curriculum has changed over the last 3 years, thus the design of the instrument has changed to collect relevant information. Movement of survey items within the survey, and modification or addition of items may have changed the constructs used in the analysis. In addition, combining responses from survey items to make composite variables may not adequately measure the constructs.

The degree of accuracy of these measures may also be questionable since the items are selfreported measures. Students, though informed their responses would have no bearing on their final grades, may have feared retaliation, and consequently, responded more favorably to the instructional methods. Further, since the instrument is completed by students at the end of an academic semester, experiences regarding assignments and methods earlier in the semester may be skewed. Though reliability and validity evidence could not be provided for all aspects of the instrument and some scales demonstrated less than acceptable internal consistency reliability, the authors wish to emphasize that instrument design is an on-going process.

In light of these limitations, this chapter has demonstrated the value of instruments to monitor our courses. Because university-wide course

A Hybrid and Novel Approach to Teaching Computer Programming in MIS Curriculum

evaluations only summarize a course at large, it is oftendifficultforeducatorstospecificallymonitor assignments and activities at a level of granularity that will inform instruction. The instrument demonstrated a level of granularity (assignment) that was useful for informing instruction. The chapter hasattemptedtodemonstratethevalidityofscores to measure students’ level of satisfaction with an MIS computer programming course, and in doing so, provided statistical conclusions demonstrating gender, prior programming experience, and employment status were not statistically different on student satisfaction in this course.

Theinstrumentalsoprovidedsomeinteresting descriptive results. Overall descriptive statistics indicate a positive outlook on learning computer programming skills and the transfer of these skills to different settings. Teamwork appears to be a favorable characteristic, from a student perspective, in computer programming instruction. And the use of synchronous communication tools shows great promise for computer programming instruction.Thischapterhasalsodescribedanovel and hybrid approach for the delivery of computer programming instruction in MIS curriculum using a variety of ICTs and pedagogical strategies. Some unique characteristics of the course include an assignment-centric design, self-paced completion, and the use of multimedia resources to replace lectures and provide flexible delivery of instruction. Analysis of student performance showednodifferencesingenderorpriorprogramming experience, though a student’s employment status did demonstrate some variation.

In closing, the authors believe MIS faculty and administration should be mindful of a student’s perspective of their courses, and should take careful steps in the integration of novel ICTs and pedagogicalstrategies.Wealsofeelthateducators should not solely rely on university-wide course evaluations to efficiently and effectively capture this critical information from students. More relevant information can be collected by developing instruments tailored closely to our courses to aid in the decision-making process.

futuRe ReseaRch diRections

This research has documented the value of developing,validating,andusingsurveyinstrumentsto monitor and evaluate courses, demonstrated the use of novel pedagogical strategies (e.g., assign- ment-centricdesign),andprovidedmanydifferent forms of ICTs that can be gracefully integrated into the curriculum. While this chapter has provided evidence to demonstrate the instructional value of the technology and method, more work needs to be executed in this area. For instance, replicating the instructional methods and use of technology in hybrid classroom environments, bothinsideandoutsideofcomputerprogramming, is necessary to generalize findings and develop best practices to inform practice.

Educational research in computingand infor- mation-centric disciplines also needs a stronger connection to other areas of educational research, an interdisciplinary approach. Of particular interest is the discipline of instructional technology. In recent years, researchers in instructional technology-related areas have been criticized for holding a one-directional view of the connection between theory and practice in which basic research questions or theory precede and gives rise to investigations having an applied focus or practice. The concept of developmental research or “design experiments” offers an exciting and usefulalternative,wherebypracticalinstructional interventions are rigorously studied for their usefulness in solving authentic problems (Reeves, 2000). Educational research without a strong grounding in a context and real-world connection, such as MIS curricula, lacks the necessity to inform practice.

Research in the realm of MIS curricula is open-endedwithmanyopportunitiesforimprove- ment and innovation, especially in computer programming instruction. Future research efforts shouldembraceaninterdisciplinaryapproach,and include contexts to solve authentic instructional problems.Theadditionalreadingssectionincludes

A Hybrid and Novel Approach to Teaching Computer Programming in MIS Curriculum

several readings that can serve as a starting place for this suggested and needed future research.

RefeRences

Al-Rawi, A., Lansari, A., & Bouslama, F. (2005). A holistic approach to develop IS curricula:

Focusing on accreditation and IT certification.

Journal of Information Techonology Education, 4, 307-327

Articulate.(2007).Articulatee-learningsoftware.

Retrieved on February 10, 2007, from http://www. articulate.com/

Beise, C., Myers, M., VanBrackle, L, & ChevliSaroq,N. (2003). Anexamination ofage,race, and sex as predictors of success in the first programming course. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 5(1), 51-64.

Brandon, D., Pruett, J., & Wade, J. (2002). Experience in developing and implementing a capstone course in information technology management.

Journal of Information Technology Education, 1(2), 92-102.

Camtasia.(2007).TechSmith.RetrievedonFebruary 10, 2007, from http://www.techsmith.com/

Carnegie Classification. (2007). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Retrieved on February 10, 2007, from http://www. carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/

Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students.

Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(22), 39-A41.

DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. (1999). Peopleware: Productive projects and teams (2nd ed.). New York: Dorset House Publishers.

Doube, W. (1998). Multimedia delivery of computer programming subjects: Basing structure on instructional design. In Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian conference on Computer Science Education, Sydney, Australia, (pp. 85-91).

Garrison, D. R. (1987). Researching dropout in distance education. Distance Education, 8(1), 95-101.

Gill, T. G. (2005a). Assignment-centric design: Testing the assignments not the lectures. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 339-346.

Gill, T. G. (2005b). Teaching C++ submarine style. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(1), 150-156.

Gill, T. G. (2006) The mystery of a self-paced course. Informing Faculty, 1(3), 95-105.

Gill, T. G. (2007). Quick and dirty multimedia.

Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 197-206.

Gill, T. G., & Holton, C. (2006). A self-paced introductory programming course. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 95-105.

Johnson, G. M. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based communication in educational contexts: A review of recent research.

TechTrends, 50(4), 46-53.

Lehman, J. A., & Naumann, J. D. (1986). A language independent course in program design and programming for MIS students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 18(4), 32-37.

Lidtke, D. K., Stokes, G. E., Haines, J., & Mulder, M. C. (1999). ISCC ’99: An information systems-centric curriculum ’99 program guides for educating the next generation of information systemsspecialists,incollaborationwithindustry. Supported by the National Science Foundations grants.

Molstad, L. (2001). Teaching computer programming using distance education technology.

Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17(1), 265-277.

Moore, M. G., & Thompson M. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning (Rev. ed. ACSDE Research Monograph No. 15). University Park, PA:

A Hybrid and Novel Approach to Teaching Computer Programming in MIS Curriculum

Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education.

Nosek, J. T. (1998, March). The case for collaborative programming. Communications of the ACM, 41(3), 105-108.

Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology, 40(6), 19-28.

Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Zucker, R. (2006). Teaching object-oriented concepts using visual basic .NET.

Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 163-170.

Stansfield, M., McLellan, E., & Connolly, T.

(2004). Enhancing student performance in online learning and traditional face-to-face class delivery. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3.

Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 147-169.

Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2001). Experi- mentswithindustry’s“pair-programming”model in the computer science classroom. Computer Science Education, 11(1), 7-20.

Woszczynski, A., Guthrie, T., & Shade, S. (2005). Personality and programming. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(4), 293-299.

Zajkowski, M. E. (1997). Price and persistence in distance education. Open Learning, 12(1), 12-23.

additional Reading

Aiken,J.(2004,September).Technicalandhuman perspectives on pair programming. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29(5), 1-14.

Baddely, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G.A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.

Barron, A. E. (2004) Auditory instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educationalcommunicationsandtechnology(pp. 949-978). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barron, A. E., & Kysilka, M. (1993). The effectiveness of digital audio in computer-based training. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 15, 277-289.

Beck, K. (1999, October). Embracing change with extreme programming. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer, 32(10), 70-77.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.

Clark, J. M. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-170.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of Technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 785-812). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kullhavey, R. W., Lee, B. J., & Caterino, L. C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 28-37.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a

0

A Hybrid and Novel Approach to Teaching Computer Programming in MIS Curriculum

dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490.

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When in an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156-163.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.

Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning

(pp. 49-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999, October 2730). Supports and interference effects in learning frommultiplerepresentations.InS.Bangera(Ed.),

European Conference on Cognitive Science, Instituto di Psicologia, Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, (pp. 447-452).

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.

Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2000, May). All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 43(5), 108-114.

Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2001, March).

Experimentswithindustry’s“pair-programming” model in the computer science classroom. Computer Science Education, 11(1), 7-20.

Williams, L. A., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19-25.

Yi,J.(2005).Effectivewaystofosterlearning.Performance Improvement Journal, 44(1), 34-38.

Chapter XV

Delivering Online Asynchronous IT

Courses to High School Students:

Challenges and Lessons Learned

Amy B. Woszczynski

Kennesaw State University, USA

abstRact

As high schools begin to offer more distance learning courses, universities have an opportunity to establish partnerships to deliver online IT courses. Delivering online courses at the high school level, however, means overcoming obstacles that may not be faced at the university level. In particular, establishing partnerships with high schools requires politically savvy navigations of bureaucratic roadblocks while ensuring the integrity of course content and delivery. This chapter provides a primer on establishing relationships with high schools to deliver college-level IT curriculum to high school students in an asynchronous learning environment. We describe the curriculum introduced and discuss some of the challenges faced and the lessons learned.

intRoduction

In this chapter, we describe the CyberTech I program, a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded initiative which delivers university level introduction to IT curriculum online to nine schools in a large metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. Delivering online curriculum to U.S. high school students (grades 9-12, with approximate ages between 14 and 18 years old) provides university educators with unique challenges. Unlike the college environment, in which professors have local autonomy over cur-

riculum delivery and instruction, public high school curriculum has rigid standards that must be achieved, along with guidelines on methods of delivery. Forming a politically savvy team aware of how to navigate the high school environment is a must for ensuring successful establishment of partnership endeavors.

The applicability of this type of program to similarly structured university-high school partnerships is obvious. However, lessons learned in theCyberTechIprogrammayalsoassistuniversity faculty members who coordinate introductory online courses with large numbers of students and teaching assistants.

Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Delivering Online Asynchronous IT Courses to High School Students

backgRound

In U.S. public school systems, IT-related courses often fall under “Career and Technology Education”or“BusinessEducation”departments.This positioning gives IT courses a distinctly different and typically lower regarded position than other mathematics and science courses. Often, students encouraged to take career and technology education courses select a noncollege-prep track. Moreover, since many of the teachers in these departments have a primary background in business, they may find it difficult to teach an advanced IT course, leaving students unable to take more advanced courses, such as advanced placement (AP) computer science, at their own schools.

In January 2005, we partnered with nine schools in a large metropolitan area to deliver an online introduction to IT course to high school students. University initiatives to deliver ITrelated courses in the high schools have proven successful in Finland (Grandell, 2005), where five different college-level courses were offered at the high school level. Moreover, a community college in Pennsylvania successfully partnered with high schools to offer college-level computer informationsystemscourseswithsignificantsuccess (Harvey, 2004). In addition to the goodwill established between high schools, students, and universities, programs such as these offer the ability to expand curriculum offerings at high schoolssignificantly(Donlevy,2003).Since25% of public high schools have distance learning alternatives, and 19 states have virtual high schools (Mupinga, 2005), partnerships between colleges andhighschoolsmaybecomemorecommonplace. Distance learning has even expanded into the elementary level in some cases (Anastasiades, 2003), with a great deal of success.

After establishing a partnership with local school systems, we then had to decide which online learning management system to use. We considered WebCT, Blackboard, and Moodle. We

neededtouseaflexible,Web-basedlearning management system for several reasons. First, some of the schools were unable to offer the course during the regular school day. Therefore, we needed an asynchronous method to communicate with students on a 24/7 schedule. Second, those schools who did offer the online class during the regular school day met at different times and in different locations. Obviously, Web-based solutions offer the ability to reach a geographically dispersed population at different times.

cybertech i PRogRaM

The CyberTech I program seeks to attract women, minorities, first-generation college students, and other underrepresented groups into technology related fields. CyberTech I is the first course that selected freshman high school students take, culminating with AP computer science in their senior year. In the middle years, students participate in SummerTech, which teaches basic programming skills and logic using VB.net, followed by Weekend Academy, an adventure game programming seminar that meets once per month throughout the student’s junior year of high school. Finally, students are encouraged to take AP computer science in their senior year, and the grant pays all testing fees. This chapter will focus on the issues surrounding successful implementation of the 75-hour, one semester (18 weeks) CyberTech I initiative, including the lessons learned and challenges.

Funding for the CyberTech I program was provided through an NSF grant (#0423576). NSF funded the grant under its Information Technology for Students and Teachers (ITEST) program. NSF awards ITEST grants to programs that show promise in increasing the number of students and teachers who learn about, experience, and use IT. The grant award included stipends for high school teachers who assisted the students (site facilitators), course releases for participating

Delivering Online Asynchronous IT Courses to High School Students

faculty members, funding for graduate teaching assistants, and miscellaneous fees for students. Students participating in the program received all materials and services free of charge, as did the schools involved. Each school agreed to provide a site facilitator and, where possible, a classroom devoted to CyberTech I students. Before turning to a discussion of the important participants in the program, we begin with an overview of the online tools used in the CyberTech I program.

online learning tools

Onlinelearningtoolsmaybebroadlyclassifiedas eithersynchronousorasynchronous.Synchronous tools allow much greater interaction and faster feedback as compared to their asynchronous counterparts. However, these advantages come with the caveat that everyone has to be online at the same time. In general, we did not use synchronous tools for the entire student group due to the varying schedules of the participating schools. CyberTech I classes met as early at 8:00 am and as late as 3:30 pm. Some classes met everyday, while others met two or three times weekly. One school even offered CyberTech I as a year-long course, meeting twice a week for 36 weeks.

In addition, the participating public schools in our program had slightly different break schedules,includingdifferentstartingandendingdates. For these reasons, we only made limited use of synchronous tools. In particular, each teaching assistant offered online office hours and was available for live chatsessionsatspecifiedtimes.

We also gave the students the opportunity to use instantmessaging,butfewusedthisoption.Infact, students only made very limited use of the chat and instant messaging options, preferring instead to use e-mail or discussion board postings.

We did, however, make extensive use of asynchronous tools to deliver the course content. Students overwhelmingly reported that the discussion board activities were helpful in keeping them connected to their peers. We included mul-

tiple discussion board assignments to engage the students. We also created a student lounge and a questionandanswer(Q&A)discussionboard.The student lounge gave participants an opportunity to talk with other students about interests outside the classroom. In fact, we required that all students post an introduction in the student lounge at the beginning of the course. Many students also posted a picture of themselves, which helped everyone put a name and face together, much as students do in a regular classroom setting. Since someCyberTechIsectionsincludedstudentsfrom multiple schools, the student lounge gave an opportunity for participants to meet other students with whom they had no physical contact.

The Q&A discussion board gave students the ability to ask classroom-relevant questions. We encouraged all students to check the Q&A discussion board frequently and to post responses if they had the answer. Of course, teaching assistants monitored this discussion board to ensure accuracy of postings.

Requiring that students post to discussion boards provided several additional advantages. First, students taking the class at different times and/or in different schools could respond at the most appropriate time for them. Second, since all students were required to make postings, the loudest or brightest students did not dominate the discussion as they mightin atraditionalclassroom environment.Rather,everyonehadanopportunity to express an opinion. Therefore, the discussion boardpostingsreflectedthediversityofourgroup, with constructive discussions on multiple topics, particularly those topics related to ethics. We found that many students posted more times than required, signaling student interest and involvement, characteristics that are difficult to find in most high school and university classrooms.

However, the discussion boards also presented some challenges. Since we were dealing with young, often immature students, the posters would occasionally flame another student or use inappropriate language. The teaching assistants

Delivering Online Asynchronous IT Courses to High School Students

were encouraged to quickly stop the inappropriate postings, remind the student of appropriate discussion board etiquette, and remove any offensive postings promptly.

Students extensively used e-mail communication tools. We quickly learned that we needed to specifye-mailresponsetimesandpostavailability forteachingassistants.Otherwise,studentswould send an e-mail in the middle of the night and expect a response immediately. If students had made more extensive use of the chat opportunities, they may have overcome some of the disadvantages of asynchronous communications.

We did face some additional challenges with e-mail communications. In particular, students using this type of communication tool often used less formal communication strategies. Professors and teaching assistants might receive e-mail messagesaddressedtothemusingfirstnamesonly,as if the teaching assistants and students were close friends. E-mail messages using all lower-case type or multiple abbreviations were frequently received. In addition, students would forget to sign their names, thus leaving the instructor to determine which student matched to a particular (oftenunrelated) e-mail address. As we developed and improved the program, we made more formal written requirements for e-mail etiquette, but we still encountered similar difficulties throughout the CyberTech I program. Next we turn to a discussion of the important components of the CyberTech I program.

Project Manager/director

We learned very quickly that we needed a project manager/director to oversee all facets of the program and who could interact well with university faculty, high school teachers, principals, counselors,parents,andstudents.Werecommend the appointment of a project manager/director with an education background, both at the kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) level and at the university level. This person should

have excellent organizational skills, the ability to balance competing needs simultaneously, an understanding of how the K-12 system operates, and the ability to work with all levels involved in the project, from county superintendents to teaching assistants (TAs), students, and teachers. The nextsection describestheCyberTech I curriculum and the delivery method selected.

curriculum and delivery

As the students’ first IT course, the curriculum focused on the basics of computing and how the technologyisused.Thecurriculumfor CyberTech I spanned the following general subject areas: 1) The computer(hardware, software, andhow computers execute software); 2) problem solving, 3) algorithmdesign;4)introductiontoprogramming languages; 5) abstract data types; 6) operating systems;7)artificialintelligence;8)networks;9) simulation; 10) software (including spreadsheets and databases); and 11) the Internet. Also, we introduced students to legal and ethical issues in computing as well as information security and forensics. The course materials included a very readable textbook (Dale & Lewis, 2003) and a computing laboratory manual (Meyer, 2003) as supplements to the online curriculum. Jones & Bartlett Publishers graciously donated the textbooks and the accompanying laboratory manual and CDs to support the program.

The CyberTech I program mapped to the quality core curriculum (QCC) standards established by the state’s Department of Education for IT Foundations 11.412, an existing high school course. Therefore, students were eligible to receive high school credit for the course. Further, students who successfully completed the CyberTech I curriculum and later enroll at our university will be able to receive college credit for a comparable introduction to IT course that many computer science and information systems majors must take. For students who do not enroll at our university, they have the option of taking