J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol.

25(4) 351-366, 2001

HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE IN SYNCHRONOUS

AND ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSIONS?

GAYLE V. DAVIDSON-SHIVERS
LIN Y. MUILENBURG
ERICA J. TANNER
University of South Alabama

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to investigate how graduate students (n = 14)
participated in on-line discussions over a two-week period to determine the
utility of synchronous and asynchronous modes of discussion. The types and
amounts of communication statements that participants made in chats and
threaded discussions were analyzed using a coding scheme developed by the
researchers. Students were randomly assigned to either a small group chat or
threaded discussion during one week. In the second week, the groups switched
discussion modes and another topic question was provided. The researchers
coded the transcribed discussions to determine whether the students’ par-
ticipation was substantive (directly related to the topic) or non-substantive
(not directly related to the content) in nature. Results indicated that overall
students’ discussions included nine types of substantive and non-substantive
comments. However, the participants when in the chat showed greater
numbers of responding and reacting statements (substantive types) in both
weeks than when participating in the threaded discussions. The majority-
female group tended to make more comments overall in both types of
discussion than did the majority-male group. Student surveys asking for their
opinions about these modes of discussion were administered at various points
in the semester. Some students found it difficult to follow the dialogue in the
chat, but overall enjoyed this type of interaction. The students also enjoyed the
threaded discussion for its convenience factor. The computer and on-line
skills improved based on the student surveys. The results of the study indicate
that both types of discussion are liked and should be considered viable options
in on-line learning communities.

351
Ó 2001, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
352 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER

INTRODUCTION

Although various forms of Distance Education have been in existence for a long
time, the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) has brought
changes to teaching and learning at the university level. A number of universities
and colleges are adding or converting traditional courses and programs to Web-
based instruction (WBI) or on-line learning environments. These WBI courses
require not only a different design and delivery of the instruction, but also a
different form of engagement on the part of students with the course materials,
other students, and the instructor. These learning environments require not
only active, but interactive participation [1, 2]. Interactive learning includes an
interchange of ideas with all participants; that is, the students and instructor
exchange ideas in a flexible and dynamic environment [3].
This interchange of ideas may occur through a synchronous mode, which occurs
at the same time but from different locations, or through an asynchronous mode, in
that students and the instructor communicate to each other at differing times. The
computer-mediated communication (CMC) literature documents the dynamics of
on-line discussions by various forms of communication patterns, processes, and
purposes [4-11]. The CMC literature and the literature on Web-based instruction
(WBI) identify various on-line delivery formats (e-mail, listserv, chats, confer-
ences, etc.) and how they might be used for discussions [12-14]. Developers of
on-line learning environments often suggest that asynchronous communication
may have advantages over synchronous and are the preferred mode of discussion.
For instance, Driscoll states that asynchronous methods allow students more
time for reflection than do synchronous delivery formats [14]. Furthermore, she
provides only one example of Web-based course in her textbook and it limits
the use of the synchronous format to 20 percent of the course. However, while the
literature is replete with opinions on best approaches to on-line discussion being
asynchronous to synchronous, there is a dearth of research-based articles to
support these assumptions.
Of the few empirically-based articles found in the literature, the methodology
and research questions varied by types of factors compared. Although most studies
found support for asynchronous discussion, they analyzed this mode of discussion
in isolation, with a different focus, or compared it to traditional face-to-face types
of classroom discussions rather than to on-line chats. For instance, McCormick
and McCormick categorized the types of content of e-mail messages sent by
undergraduate students without comparison to other on-line modes [8]. Whereas
Williams and Merideth compared the messages of the class discussion group
(using a listserv) to the messages sent to the professor either through e-mail [4].
Other comparisons of on-line asynchronous discussions focused on gender
differences and similarities. Wojahn compared the communication patterns of
men and women in a bulletin-board communication format [6]. McConnell also
compared patterns of men and women but used mixed gender groups in computer
 HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE? / 353

conference [9]. Both studies found that the communication for men and women
were equitable in amount within these types of computer-mediated delivery
systems, but that males tended to dominate in traditional, face-to-face classroom
discussions. By contrast, Tannen suggests that females in face-to-face conver-
sations with each other, tend to use more words and elaborations as well as
supportive comments than do males in similar situations [15]. McConnell
suggests that males acknowledge points made by others at the end of the con-
versation and females tend to provide acknowledgment throughout a face-to-face
conversation [9].
Closer to our research question, a study by Piburn and Middleton compared
asynchronous discussions on a listserv to face-to-face classroom discussions, but
with a focus on professor and student interactions [5]. They found that asyn-
chronous held some advantages over the traditional classroom, such as student
preferences for the listserv and noted a role reversal with students initiating the
conversations rather than teachers. Scifres, Gundersen, and Behara also compared
in-class teams to on-line (electronic mail) teams for task accomplishment and
satisfaction [16]. They found that the on-line teams reported that they were less
satisfied as team members and the project, but also reported higher levels of
overall learning compared to the traditional in-class team members.
Also noting an absence of any analysis or evaluation of on-line chats in the
literature, Jeong found in his analysis that these types of synchronous discussions
had a main advantage of promoting highly interactive discussions with a dis-
advantage for the group to digress from the topic to another [7]. However, he did
not compare this on-line mode of discussion to threaded discussions.
Hara, Bonk, and Angeli did report one study that had made comparisons of
synchronous discussions to asynchronous [11]. The findings of research by Bonk,
Hansen, et al. (1998)1 suggested that delayed conferencing fostered more depth
of discussion than synchronous chatting. “In both time modes, they reported
students were extremely content focused” [11, p. 28]. Because our literature
search revealed a lack of findings on synchronous discussions in comparison
to asynchronous, it seemed reasonable to compare and contrast how students
participate in both types of on-line discussions.
The purpose of our study was to compare the discussions of graduate students in
both asynchronous (threaded discussion via a listserv) to those in the synchronous
discussion (on-line chat) for types and amounts of communication statements.
In addition, we surveyed the students during the course as to their perceptions
about their computer and on-line experience, the class and these two forms
of on-line discussion. Both methods were used to indicate whether both forms of
discussion were viable for on-line learning environments.

1
The manuscript did not provide a cited reference of this study. It only gave the authors and date
within the text and no further information was found in the reference list.
354 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER

METHODS

Participants
Participants in the study were graduate students (n = 14) in a required course for
their degree programs of study from a southeastern regional university in the
United States. Approximately two-thirds of the students were female. Based on
the survey results, the majority of students reported that they had computer
experience with some having less experience with the Internet and WWW.
Participation in the discussions was a course requirement. Confidentiality of
information was maintained by having surveys collected and coded by someone
other than the instructor and the analysis of the discussions occurred after final
grades were posted.

Course Content, Organization, and Requirements

As background for understanding the dynamics of discussion for the two-week
period, we are providing background information on the course content and
organization. The course was an introduction to the trends and issues in instruc-
tional design for students in a graduate program. The course was organized by
weekly topics with assignments and questions being posted to its Web site. Two or
three questions were given with directions on how to post (either chat or threaded
discussion) answers and replies. Students had a week to respond to any threaded
discussion question(s) and were also required to reply at least twice to other
students’ responses during the week. The semester began with the use of threaded
discussions and within the first three weeks, chats were added.
Most weeks had one question that was scheduled for about an hour and a half
chat during the week, but not always. Chats were either large groups (whole class)
or small groups (half of the class per a chat session).
Students were also assigned particular readings as preparation for discussing
the weekly topic. They were encouraged to draw on their own experiences,
knowledge, and skills and bring this knowledge to the discussions. Both threaded
discussion and chat could be copied and all of the chats were distributed to all
members of the class. In addition, after each week had ended a summary of the
content and activities was written and sent to all students. The summaries
also clarified any misconceptions that might have occurred during discussions,
if they weren’t corrected during the discussions.
By the fourth week, most of technical problems had been resolved with
only minor incidents occurring during the remainder of the 15-week course.
The instructor facilitated the discussions for the first four weeks of the semester.
Students were assigned as discussion leaders based on their choice of topics.
Beginning the fifth week of the term, they began to facilitate the weekly
discussions in both chats and threaded discussions with guidance from the
instructor.
 HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE? / 355

As discussion leaders, the students participated directly in both types of dis-

cussions as well as providing summary comments at the end of the week that
were reviewed by the instructor before they were sent to the class as a whole.
Although the instructor participated directly in the on-line chats, the student
discussion leaders facilitated and lead the group. With the threaded discussions,
the instructor participated by adding her comments to the summary at the end of
the week rather than commenting during the week. She observed the threaded
discussion periodically during the week and at the beginning of the term and if
there seemed to be lack of participation, she would e-mail students as a reminder.
However, it was not necessary to send e-mails to students during the study.

Data Sources

Coded Transcripts

Two threaded discussions and two chats were coded for types of participation
that students made during on-line discussion (see Table 1). The coding scheme
used two main categories of substantive, messages that related directly to the
content or topic at hand and non-substantive, messages that did not relate to
the discussion topic or content. The four subcategories for substantive were
structuring, soliciting, responding, and reacting; the five subcategories for non-
substantive were procedural, technical, chatting, supportive statements, and
uncodable. Every statement or sentence (a complete thought) was coded using one
of these nine subcategories.

Survey

As a means of providing supplementary information, student perceptions were

obtained using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed two times—
after the fifth week and during the fifteenth week of the semester. This 43-item
survey asked students to report their capabilities using technology, Web-based
technology in particular, and experience with the discipline, with other demo-
graphic data obtained with the first administration only. They were also asked to
critique the course as it progressed through the term on the basis of technical
difficulties, interest in topics, preferences to types of activities, instructional
strategies used, and amount of work that this course in this format involved.

Data Analysis Procedures

The following procedures occurred for gathering and analyzing the data.
• Using a Likert-type questionnaire, students were surveyed two times during
the term (in order to evaluate students’ reactions and attitudes toward the
course as it progressed). The survey also gathered information about the
computer experiences and skills. Data was kept confidential by having
356 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER
Table 1. Types of Discussion Participation Coding Scheme
SUBSTANTIVE
Structure Types: Messages that relate to the discussion content or topic.
Code # Code Name Definition
1 Structuring Statements that initiate a
discussion and focus atten-
tion on the topic of the dis-
cussion. These statements
are often made by the
discussion leader or
instructor
2 Soliciting Any content-related question,
command or request which
attempts to solicit a
response or draw attention
to something
3 Responding A statement in direct
response to a solicitation
(i.e., answers to questions,
commands, or requests).
Generally these are the first
response to the initial state-
ments by the discussion
leader or a direct response
to a question by another
student about the topic.
4 Reacting A reaction to either a struc-
turing statement or to
another person’s comments,
but not a direct response to
the question.
NONSUBSTANTIVE
Structure Types: Messages that do not relate to the discussion topic or content.
5 Procedural Scheduling information,
announcements, logistics,
listserv membership
procedures, etc.
Example
“Today we are going to
discuss . . .” or “Well with
only a few minutes left, I want
us to conclude by . . .”
“How would you make IT
attractive to . . .?” or “How
long does it take to implement
a change in . . .?”
“From the assigned readings,
I believe that the ID is a solu-
tion . . . for educational system
restructuring. However, the
main burden for the restructur-
ing is that . . .” or “I think
ownership is an internal moti-
vation, if they think they are
part of the design and it is
their product, they can make
instruction have a significant
positive impact on . . .”
“Your earlier statement got
me to thinking about . . .” or
“You said . . . I think impor-
tant ingredients to helping
employees, teachers, etc.
adjust to new technology
would be . . .”
“The final paper is due on
. . .” OR “The assignment can
be sent via e-mail”
 HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE? / 357

Table 1. (Cont’d.)
Code # Code Name Definition Example

6 Technical Computer-related questions, “Some of you have experi-

content, suggestions of how
to do something, not
related to the topic directly.
enced some difficulty
recently in getting e-mail
back from the listserv . . .” OR
“How do I copy and paste the
chat?”

7 Chatting Personal statements, jokes, “How was your weekend?” OR

introductions, greetings to “What is the matter with my
one, etc. to individuals or typing tonight!”
the group.

8 Uncodable Statements that consist of Typographical errors were

too little information or the majority of the uncodable
unreadable to be coded responses.
meaningfully.

9 Supportive Statements that although “You always give such a well

similar to chatting, there is written answer! I enjoy reading
an underlying positive your ideas and thoughts.” or
reinforcement to the “lol . . . cool idea!”
comment! Note: This cate-
gory was added when
researchers met about
their coded transcripts.

Source: Davidson-Shivers, Muilenburg, & Tanner, 1999. Adapted from Piburn &
Middleton (1998); Williams & Merideth (1996).

someone other than the course instructor collect and code each set of
questionnaires.
• For one question posted during the 13th week of the term, the students were
randomly assigned to two groups. By randomly assigning the students to the
group, the researcher was trying to limit any bias that she might have had
in placing students into the small groups. Half the students discussed the
question (it was the third question posted for each of the two weeks) using the
on-line chat format (Group A) and the remaining students used the threaded
discussion (Group B). The process was repeated the following week with a
new topic and question, and the Groups A and B switched discussion formats.
It should be noted that each group ended up with a sample size of six graduate
students due to mortality.
• A coding scheme, developed by the researchers, was based on the works of
Piburn and Middleton [5] and Williams and Merideth [4]. See Table 1 for the
358 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER

coding scheme. The coding and analyses of the discussions did not occur until
after the final course grades were posted.
• The researchers were trained to use the coding scheme and then coded
each discussion transcript independently. The transcripts were coded using a
completed statement/thought made rather than using a line-by-line method or
word count. Complete sentences, incomplete sentences, and short phrases
were considered as a statement if they contained a single thought. If a sentence
contained several ideas or thoughts, then each was coded as a separate item.
Threaded discussions tended to have complex and lengthy sentences whereas
incomplete sentences or short phrases were often used within the chat due to
the nature of this format.
• The researchers met together to reach agreement on each statement coded.
If any discrepancies were encountered their codings, the three researchers
discussed the statement and then came to consensus. At the first of these
meetings, the researchers added another code type, supportive statements to
the non-substantive category; it became number 9 (see Table 1).

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Types of Communication Statements

The analysis showed that participants’ comments were made in all substantive
and non-substantive categories in the chats and the threaded discussion (listserv),
except that there were no uncodable (albeit, unreadable by the researchers) in the
threaded discussions and several in the chat transcripts. (See Figures 1 through 4
for the frequency counts of each category by discussion format for both Week 13
and Week 14.) In addition, whether in a chat or threaded discussion for either
week, students overall provided more substantive statements either by responding
to a question or reacting to another’s statements or comments than any of the other
seven categories.
By mere observation of the length of the responses by participants in a threaded
discussion, it would seem that they would contain more substantive remarks than
those in a chat discussion, especially since statements in the chat tended to be
shorter in length and were often interrupted by others’ comments. However, the
chat discussions showed greater numbers of responding and reacting statements in
both weeks over the substantive statements made in the threaded discussions.
There were also greater amounts of non-substantive statements in the categories
of chatting and supportive comments during the chats than in the threaded
discussions.
Overall there were a greater number of interchanges and interaction among
students during both weeks when participating in a chat than when involved in
the threaded discussions. Again, the lengths of the statements were shorter than
in the threaded discussion. In addition, the chat sometimes had multiple dialogues
 HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE? / 359
Figure 1. Frequency for each category for Week 13 Chat (Group A).
 360 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER
Figure 2. Frequency for each category for Week 13 Threaded Discussion (Group B).
 HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE? / 361
Figure 3. Frequency for each category for Week 14 Chat (Group B).
 362 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER
Figure 4. Frequency for each category for Week 14 Threaded Discussion (Group A).
 HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE? / 363

going simultaneously. This divergent dialogue sometimes made it difficult for

students to follow the discussion. Thus, it appears that for these two weeks of a
given course, the chat discussions were dynamic with a lot of interactive and
interchanges among the participants.
In contrast, the threaded discussions contained complex sentences and provided
more grammatically correct structure and more reflective statements than in the
chats. With both types of discussions, the students tended to be supportive of each
other’s comments, even when they didn’t necessarily agree. The researchers didn’t
see any flaming occur; all in all they were a polite and cordial bunch.
It should be noted that there was a decrease in the frequency in all categories of
the chat of week 14 when compared to the chat of week 13. At first we thought that
this decrease might be due to the time factor since the study used transcriptions
from discussions that occurred in the last few weeks of the term. We also
considered that it might be due to participants’ interest in the topic of the week
compared to the previous week’s topic. However, upon further examination, we
found that a decreased number in statements were also reflected in the threaded
discussions, but in a reverse order. Week 14 threaded discussion had more
statements in the various categories over week 13. Hence, we speculated instead
that the decreases found in the categories may be due, in part, to the nature of the
groups. When randomly assigned to the two groups, Group A students, who
chatted in week 13 and had a threaded discussion in week 14, had a majority of
female students in the class (five females and one male). Whereas Group B had the
majority of males and just the opposite configuration (five males and one female).
Although an interesting discovery, it was not a part of our original question and we
can only speculate that gender differences was an intervening factor to the
variation in frequencies.

Speculation on Gender

Contrary to the findings of Wojahn’s [6] and McConnell’s [9] studies, our study
found that the majority-male group made dramatically less statements in both
types of on-line discussions when compared to the women in a majority-female
group rather than being equitable. These findings may be similar to face-to-face
conversation patterns within same gender groups. (Recall that Wojahn’s [6]
and McConnell’s [9] studies compared communication patterns in mixed-gender
groups.) Perhaps when in discussion with the same gender, participants may revert
back to traditional patterns of communication of each gender. That is, according to
Tannen, males tend to speak in parallel tracks and elaborate less on topics than do
females; women tend to use 10,000 more words on a daily basis than do men [15].
In addition, females tend to provide more supportive statements than do males
when in conversation with each other. Wojahn suggests that females acknowledge
points made by each other more so than do males [6]. McConnell also states
that men tend to support conversations at the end whereas women tend support
364 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER

conversations throughout the dialogue [9]. Our results seem to support these
findings.

Student Opinions about On-Line Discussion Modes

The supportive data suggests that students liked both modes of discussion when
they were surveyed. In terms of the listserv (asynchronous) discussions, the
majority of the students gave positive responses (36 percent agree and 14 percent
strongly agree) to the statement, “I like threaded discussions.” Some students
commented positively on the convenience factor associated with asynchronous
discussions. The majority of the students also were positive about the statement
“I like small group chats” (50 percent agree and 7 percent strongly agree). In their
comments, they stated that the chat discussions were sometimes difficult to follow,
but still enjoyed them. One student commented that he or she liked small group
chats over large group ones. In addition, a student liked the interaction and
timeliness that chats provided over threaded discussions. Hence, even though
developers suggest that threaded discussions be used rather than chats, we suggest
that instructors consider using chat as a discussion tool since they provide a spon-
taneous dynamic of live conversation that threaded discussions do not deliver.
Furthermore, students like them, which does not support the assumptions by
developers of Web-based instruction.
When reporting their computer experience level, most participants stated that
they had experience using computers, although some stated that they had little
experience using the Internet and WWW at the beginning of the course. However,
by the end of the course, they indicated that their on-line skills had increased.
Because we reviewed discussions of the last weeks of the course, we do not believe
that computer skills were a factor in our study.

SUMMARY
Although bandied about in the literature that threaded discussion is the desired
mode for on-line learning, the results of this study did not indicate that. Instead,
both types of discussion were found to be viable and provided students with
opportunities for actions and interactions that allowed them to be successful in
such a learning community. It is also important to realize that these graduate
students, for different reasons, enjoyed both forms of discussion. The use of
chats provided a direct and interactive environment in which students reacted
and responded to the topic questions at hand, chitchatted, and made supportive
comments to each other. It involved a high degree of interchange and was a
dynamic environment, although sometimes difficult for some students’ to follow
the train(s) of thought. In contrast, threaded discussions provide an opportunity for
students to provide reflective, thoughtful responses to posed questions, judging
by the length and wording of any given single response. They were also able to
 HOW DO STUDENTS PARTICIPATE? / 365

provide insightful reactions to others’ opinions and ideas presented perhaps

because a threaded discussion’s timeframe (of a week) allowed for that. Students
enjoyed the threaded discussions because of the convenience factor.
Based on the results of this study, the use of both synchronous and asyn-
chronous discussions in on-line learning has merit. The assumption that
asynchronous is more viable as some developers maintain may be faulty.
Both discussion modes—on-line chats and threaded discussion—warrant use
within on-line courses. They clearly can be used for different purposes and
provide different, but useful, means for students to engage in discussion and
learning. Furthermore, since there is a lack of research on synchronous modes
of discussion in on-line learning and in comparison to asynchronous, it is sug-
gested that additional research into the use of chats and threaded discussions
be continued.
In addition and contrary to current CMC research on gender and CMC dis-
cussions, our findings indicated that females had greater amounts of interaction in
both types of discussion than did the males. However, our groups were same
gender rather than mixed-gender groups. Gender as an intervening variable should
be further investigated in research on-line discussions.

REFERENCES
1. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. Collaborative Instruction on the Web:
Students Learning Together. Proceedings for the WebNet98 World Conference,
Orlando, FL, November 1998.
2. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. Designing Instruction for WWW:
A Model. Proceedings for the Ed-Media 1999, World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Seattle, Washington, United States,
June 1999.
3. Rasmussen, K. L., & Northrup, P. T. Interactivity and the Web: Making and
Maintaining Contact. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for
Educational and Communication Technology, Houston, Texas, February 1 999.
4. Williams, H. L., & Merideth, E. M. On-line communication patterns of novice Internet
users. Computers in the Schools, 12:3, 21-23, 1996.
5. Piburn, M. D., & Middleton, J. A. (1998). Patterns of faculty and student conversation
in listserv and traditional journals in a program for preservice mathematics and science
teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31:1, 62-77, 1998.
6. Wojahn, P. G., Computer-mediated communications: The great equalizer between
men and women. Technical Communications, 41:4, 747-752, 1994.
7. Jeong, A. The structure of group discussions in online chats. Journal of Visual Literacy,
16:1, 51-63, 1996.
8. McCormick, N. B., & McCormick, J. W., Computer friends and foe: Content of
undergraduates’ electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 379-405, 1992.
9. McConnell, D., Interaction patterns of mixed sex groups in educational com-
puter conferences. Part I—Empirical Findings. Gender and Education, 9:3, 345-363,
1997.
366 / DAVIDSON-SHIVERS, MUILENBURG AND TANNER

10. Sherry, L., The nature and purpose of online discourse: A brief synthesis of current
research as related to the WEB Project. ITFORUM Paper #33. Also to appear in
The International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, April 1999.
11. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C., Content analysis of online discussion in an applied
educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28:2, 115-152, March 2000.
12. Khan, B. H., Web-based Instruction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications, 1997.
13. Shotsberger, P. G., Emerging roles for instructors and learners in the Web-based
instruction classroom. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1997.
14. Driscoll, M., Web-Based Training, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998.
15. Tannen, D., You just don’t understand: Women and Men in conversation. New York:
Ballentine Books, 1991.
16. Scifres, E. L., Gundersen, D. E., & Behara, R. S., An empirical investigation of
electronic groups in the classroom. Journal of Educational Business, 73:4, 247-250,
1998.

Direct reprint requests to:

Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers, Ph.D.
Dept. of Behavioral Studies & Educational Technology
UCOM 3700
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688