The implementation and use of a World Wide Web (WWW) discussion board for chemistry education is described. Students and faculty used the discussion board to discuss course material electronically, and faculty used it to post and maintain course information. The technology is compared to traditional classroom discussion and to existing forms of electronic communication (email, listservers, newsgroups, static WWW pages, and chat). Survey results and usage statistics are presented to assess the student response to the discussion board. Important considerations for selecting, implementing, and maintaining a WWW discussion board are discussed, focusing in particular on features necessary to facilitate use in chemical education. An analysis of the factors that contribute to a successful WWW discussion board is presented, along with examples of successful discussion topics.

The World Wide Web (WWW) is being used extensively in general and chemical education to increase the availability of information resources to students. The most common format for presenting information on the WWW is a static document. While static documents serve a valuable purpose as information repositories, they offer little pedagogical advantage over hardcopies of the same information. Since these documents are usually created by faculty, their use typically facilitates only faculty-to-student communication. In contrast, WWW discussion board technology allows the creation of interactive documents by both faculty and students, which change dynamically to reflect the questions, ideas, and/or results of students. Since students are involved in the document creation process, active learning occurs as students create content and student-to-faculty and student-to-student communication increases. In addition to allowing electronic conversation among course participants, a WWW discussion board can serve as an organizational center for course information because of its universal accessibility through a WWW browser.

Implementation of WWW-based discussion has several advantages over other electronic communication technologies such as e-mail, electronic chat rooms, and newsgroups. The WWW allows formatting not possible through e-mail or chat rooms, such as superscripts, subscripts, and graphics, which are essential for communication involving chemistry. WWW discussion is organized into topics and subtopics, allowing participants to locate relevant portions of the discussion quickly and efficiently, whereas e-mail distribution lists and electronic chat rooms have no such organization and newsgroups tend to have an unfocused structure. WWW discussion boards can be accessed from anywhere in the world with internet access, allowing students and faculty to participate in the discussion from campus computer labs, offices, and home, whereas the use of e-mail and newsgroups is often localized to a user’s computer. WWW discussion is asynchronous, allowing students and faculty to participate in discussion at any time, whereas chat rooms require all participants to be present at the same time. Conversations stored on a WWW discussion board are archived, allowing students and faculty to review previous conversations as desired, whereas newsgroups periodically purge old messages regardless of whether the messages are still under discussion. Thus, a WWW discussion board is an ideal method for electronic discussion among students and faculty.

The Hope College Chemistry discussion board, known as "ChemBoard," (1) was created by installing the Discus WWW discussion board package (2) onto the Chemistry Department’s WWW server. Each class being taught was given its own topic on the discussion board, and instructors were set up as moderators of their topics. Instructors granted their students posting privileges by establishing a user account for each student. ChemBoard was generally used as an optional supplement to classroom discussion and lecture and not as a course taught entirely through electronic means.

The discussion board was used in several contexts by various chemistry classes, as summarized in Table 1. The General Chemistry topic contained static information, such as lecture notes and homework keys, as well as discussions on approaches and hints to homework problems in an "Ask the Prof" section. Some upper level courses used the discussion board primarily as a distribution center for course information such as the syllabus, as small class sizes and nearly constant availability of the instructor diminished the need for student discussion groups. Others required the use of ChemBoard through assignments on the discussion board, such as an initial post for personal introductions, student created homework keys, data sharing, and student essays on a variety of chemistry topics.

Table 1. Summary of uses of the discussion board technology

Class Level	Ideas Used
Introductory	Distribution center for course materials (syllabus, exam keys) Student self-introductions Student-instructor discussion on homework topics Instructor-prepared homework keys Sharing of results of in-class activities
Advanced	Distribution center for course materials (lecture notes) Student essays on a wide variety of chemistry topics Student-student discussions on homework topics Student-created homework keys Sharing of laboratory data

Faculty used three methods to post static information: conversion of word processor files into HTML (automatic in modern word processors), scanned pages of hand-written material uploaded to the server as an image, and posting the information as actual messages on the discussion board. In all three cases, the discussion board was a mechanism by which the information was organized, eliminating the need to update an index page manually when new information was made available. Students used the discussion board both to obtain the static course information and to participate in ongoing electronic discussions.

Student responses to the discussion board were measured through surveys administered to students in appropriate classes during the final week of classes. The surveys were designed to evaluate student usage patterns and the benefit of the technology perceived by students.

All of the classes on ChemBoard used the discussion board as a front-end to static course materials, such as the syllabus, announcements, lecture notes, and exam and homework keys. In the Fall semester, students were asked about their ChemBoard usage patterns (Table 2) and in the Spring semester, students rated the frequency of use of static course materials and discussions on a scale of one to five (Table 3). Not surprisingly, the usage level varied according to the emphasis on ChemBoard by the course instructor, and the frequency of topics accessed by the students depended on the perceived importance of the topics to the students, with course announcements being used least frequently and exam keys most frequently.

Table 2. Student ChemBoard use in Fall 1997 semester

Class	Have never looked at ChemBoard	Rarely use ChemBoard	Regularly view lecture notes, keys
General Chemistry	4%	45%	43%
Analytic Chemistry	0%	65%	39%
Physical Chemistry	0%	9%	87%

 

Table 3. Student ChemBoard use in Spring 1998 semester (1=never to 5=most frequently)

Class	Read announcements	Read lecture notes	Read homework keys	Read exam keys from previous years	Read exam keys from current year
General Chemistry	1.7	3.3	2.3	2.4	4.0
Inorganic Chemistry	2.8	N/A	3.7	3.5	3.5
Physical Chemistry	2.8	N/A	4.3	N/A	N/A

To facilitate student-faculty and student-student interaction, each of the classes also had a "Discussion" or "Ask the Prof" section, which students regularly used to communicate with their instructors or among themselves. In each section, over 50% of students reported regularly reading these discussions, and over 90% of students surveyed indicated that these discussions were worthwhile. In some upper level classes, students were required to use the discussion board to produce homework keys, write short essays, or respond to questions. In these cases, students were the authors of ChemBoard material while the faculty served as editors. Students also used the discussion board to share data and thus collaborated on experimental results to draw conclusions. Students who were asked to rate the success of ChemBoard at stimulating student-faculty and student-student interaction (Table 4) concluded that ChemBoard did enhance each communication area.

Table 4. Student responses to question "Did ChemBoard promote student-instructor and student-student discussion?" (1=no to 5=yes)

Class	Student-instructor discussion	Student-student discussion
General Chemistry, Fall	4.1	3.5
Analytic Chemistry, Fall	3.7	3.4
Physical Chemistry, Fall	3.6	2.7
General Chemistry, Spring	4.4	3.6
Inorganic Chemistry, Spring	4.4	4.2
Physical Chemistry, Spring	3.9	3.2

Over the two semesters of use, the main page of ChemBoard was accessed over 18,000 times. Approximately 15,000 of these accesses were made by students from computers connecting through the Hope College network, with the other 3,000 accesses coming from students and faculty logging on through other service providers and from curious visitors throughout the world. Students accessed the discussion board both from campus computer laboratories and their dorm rooms and homes, consistent with the experience of Tissue et al. (3) Approximately 50% of accesses to ChemBoard occurred after 5:00 pm, when faculty were less available than during the day. During the two semesters, faculty and board administrators posted a total of 479 messages and students posted a total of 786 messages, for a total of 1,275 messages. Nearly 40% of students who were registered for the ChemBoard system posted messages, with 143 different chemistry students posting messages out of a total of 360 students registered. The average student accessed the discussion board 42 times during the year. Students who posted messages contributed an average of 5.5 messages to the discussion board.

The survey specifically asked students who did not post a message on ChemBoard why they did not post. The most common reason given for not posting messages was that the question had already been asked, demonstrating the success of ChemBoard at answering repetitive questions. Other frequent reasons were that the answer to the question appeared too late to be of value and students would prefer a face-to-face discussion with the instructor. Very few students indicated that they did not know how to use the technology; in fact, students reported that the ChemBoard program was extremely easy to use (Table 5). No student reported fear of embarrassment for asking a question, mainly because ChemBoard has a feature whereby users can post as "Anonymous." Given that a majority of students read the material that was available, especially when it was useful to them, assessing the importance of the discussion board to the students goes beyond consideration of the volume of posts.

Table 5. Student responses to question "How easy do you find ChemBoard to use?" (1=difficult to 5=easy)

Semester	Average Rating	Percentage of students giving a rating of "5"
Fall	4.6	72%
Spring	4.6	74%

Based on experience using a WWW discussion board in chemistry education, several issues were discovered that are essential to implementing a successful discussion board. Accessibility from anywhere and with a minimal client-side capability is key to allowing everyone to participate with convenience. ChemBoard was accessible from any computer with internet access using an ordinary Netscape (4) or Microsoft (5) WWW browser with no special helper applications or plug-ins, allowing faculty and students to monitor the discussion from home, work, and campus computer labs. In this sense, the WWW proved to be an ideal method by which to deliver this information, since e-mail is often localized to one computer where the user maintains a mailbox and newsgroups require special reader software that remembers a user’s settings on only one machine. A previous internet chemistry course at another institution which used an e-mail listserver experienced difficulty because of students’ limited e-mail editors and poor software (6).

In terms of resources required for setup and maintenance, a WWW discussion board proved to be a viable choice in a typical academic computing environment (Table 6). The Discus software can be installed on any unix WWW server (such as a university’s main WWW server) or on any Windows 95, 98, or NT computer with appropriate server software. Generally, installation of the discussion board software takes well under an hour and can be accomplished by anyone regardless of computer expertise. There are well over one hundred software packages that in some way support WWW-based discussion, ranging in price from free to tens of thousands of dollars (7). The Discus software, which is free, is ideally suited for use in chemistry education, as it contains all necessary functionality to promote an interactive learning environment (Table 7). Once the software has been installed, initial setup of topic structure for a class generally requires between one and two hours of planning and actual setup time on the part of the instructor. One effective way to plan and implement an initial topic structure is to use other successful implementations as models. Once the class topic has been initiated, maintenance and response to student discussion generally requires between fifteen minutes and two hours weekly depending on the level of student activity, but is offset by the time saving realized by the elimination of both repeated questions and student requests for material that is now shared publicly through the discussion board.

Table 6. Summary of the Discus software costs and requirements

Description	Cost/Requirement
Cost of Discussion Software	Free
Server System Requirements	Any WWW server running unix or Windows
User System Requirements	Ordinary WWW browser (Microsoft 3.0+ or Netscape 2.0+)
Software Installation Time	One hour or less
Initial Topic Setup Time	One to two hours
Weekly Maintenance Time	15 minutes to 2 hours

Table 7. Summary of the Discus software features

Type of User	Key Functionality
User (Student)	Easy-to-use, intuitive, fast-loading user interface Read discussions and post messages using an ordinary WWW browser "Add a Message" boxes included on message pages Searching by keyword or for new messages Formatting without knowing HTML by entering simple codes in messages (subscripts, symbols, Greek, etc.) Ability to include hypertext links to other WWW sites of interest Table upload (copy and paste from spreadsheet) Image upload, useful for uploading equations or graphs E-mail notification of new posts Post as "anonymous" option (can be disabled by instructor)
Moderator (Instructor)	All functionality available to users (students) All administrative tools accessible using an ordinary WWW browser Ability to limit posting to students in appropriate class Ability to delete, move, reorder, or edit existing subtopics or messages Ability to make hypertext links to other WWW documents appear as subtopics Ability to disallow new posts in an existing conversation Electronic input of class lists (paste from spreadsheet)

Administrative tools are critical both for setting up and maintaining a discussion, and the ability to delete, move, edit, and reorder messages and subtopics allowed the discussion to proceed in an orderly manner. Faculty moderators were able to access all of these administrative tools through their WWW browsers, and use of the discussion board or the administrative tools did not require any specialized knowledge of HTML, FTP, unix, or other extensive computer literacy. This permitted faculty who were not computer experts to administer their topics effectively. Administrators also had the ability to restrict posting to members of their class, which prevents the general public or malicious hackers from interrupting the classroom discussion with spurious or unacceptable posts. The Discus software package used for ChemBoard allowed extensive formatting without knowing HTML, allowing all participants the opportunity to enhance the readability of their posts by entering simple formatting codes in their messages. The software also allowed automatic entry of class lists through cut-and-paste from a spreadsheet program, allowing instructors who obtained their class lists electronically from the College to automatically create accounts for their students without actually typing in the names or student ID numbers. Any software package must be easy for both students and administrators to use without need for a specialized training session. Students reported that an intuitive user interface, complete on-line documentation, and searching capability (by keyword and new messages) made ChemBoard very easy to use. Faculty, regardless of computer expertise, were able to set up effective topics and learn the operation of the software quickly.

In chemistry education, formatting options are crucial for delivering necessary information. Superscripts and subscripts are essential for writing chemical formulas, and equation formatting such as superscripts, subscripts, integrals, symbols, and Greek was used frequently in more mathematical courses. Faculty and students used formatting codes to create hyperlinks to sites of interest, such as interactive periodic tables and on-line repositories of chemical data. Image upload capability allowed students and administrators to upload graphics without having an account on another WWW server to host the images. Inline images were frequently used for including chemical structures and complex equations imported from an equation editor. A preview screen, which is automatically invoked prior to posting, allowed the user to observe the actual entry of the messages and formatting codes before actually posting the message, eliminating uncertainty and reducing errors.

The most important factor determining student usage of ChemBoard was their perception of the value of the material. Written survey comments indicated that students are more likely to use the discussion board when the material is "relevant" and "beneficial." Log analysis showed that pages offering hints on homework problems were most commonly visited by students. Students also made frequent use of lecture notes and summaries to check their own notes and to determine the key points of the lecture. Homework keys and exam keys were used frequently by students to review for coming exams and to ascertain the instructor’s expectations.

Some faculty chose to require the use of the discussion board. In some cases, this was done subtly by distributing homework assignments only on the discussion board, but not by making posting a part of a student’s grade. Some homework problems required reading WWW documents or resources, such as on-line periodic tables and molecule visualization sites, which were linked from the board. In other cases, posting messages was made part of a student’s grade. One class required students to post solutions to homework problems, and the instructor then reordered and edited (if necessary) the solutions to produce a student-created homework key. Another class prepared a virtual tour of their chemistry laboratory, uploading images and describing the equipment used. Student writing assignments on a wide variety of topics, ranging from serious discussion of technical issues to humorous student essays on the topic of "What if Planck’s constant were bigger," supplemented ordinary classroom discussion and shared student thoughts in a way not otherwise possible. This is similar to an approach used by Stevens and Stevens, in which students were required to find an internet site and write a paper about it (8). In the case of the discussion board, however, student essays were shared with everyone in the class. In some laboratory work, students were required to post their individual data so general conclusions could be drawn from the class data. Previous literature suggests that the most effective use of the WWW is collaboration among groups of scientists (9), an experience fostered by use of a discussion board. Finally, it has been noted that requiring posts from students encourages social cohesion that encourages students to go beyond the posting requirements (10). This behavior was in fact observed among a core of students who were frequent contributors to ChemBoard.

Introduction of the chemistry discussion board increased faculty efficiency and enhanced student education in several ways. Faculty perceived that posting answers to common questions cut down on the number of repetitive questions asked, and many students indicated that the reason they did not post a message was that the question had already been asked. Some faculty extended office visits to the WWW by requiring students who asked a question in person to post the same question on the discussion board so the question could then be answered for the entire class. Posting static information, such as the course syllabus and lecture notes, eliminated the need to replace lost student copies or to make the information available at some other location.

Several faculty noted that some of the most frequent contributors to the discussion board were students who did not regularly ask questions in class, indicating that the discussion board gave these students another voice to actively participate in the class.

A key concern with any technology is whether the technology creates an additional burden on students or whether it enhances their chemistry education. When asked the question, "Is ChemBoard enhancing your chemistry education" on surveys, students reported that the discussion technology was greatly enhancing their education, with almost half of the students giving it the highest possible rating (Table 8).

Table 8. Student responses to question "Is ChemBoard enhancing your chemistry education?" (1=no to 5=yes)

Semester	Average Rating	Percentage of students giving rating of "5"
Fall	4.0	42%
Spring	4.0	49%

In general, students found a WWW discussion board to be of value in their education, whether it was required by their classes or not. Many students preferred face-to-face communication with faculty rather than electronic communication, especially in upper level courses where the faculty were available almost constantly throughout the day. Student discussions were generally limited to homework problems and questions about exams, which is to be expected in technical courses where there are not a wide variety of opinions. However, these small classes still valued the discussion board for timely responses to common questions. Students at all levels made use of static materials, especially lecture notes and exam keys, when those materials were of immediate interest to them.

Electronic communication is becoming increasingly important in education, especially chemistry education, to distribute static information and to engage students with dynamic hypermedia documents. Interactive discussion boards serve as an "after hours" communication system for students, allowing discussion of homework problems and issues among themselves or with faculty. Storing this discussion on the WWW preserves it as a reference source spanning the entire semester, reducing repetitive questions and thereby saving time for faculty and students. Electronic communication also elicits participation from some students who do not feel as comfortable contributing to classroom discussions.

We gratefully acknowledge a Howard Hughes Medical Foundation Faculty Development Grant for funding for the initial development of the ChemBoard software and National Science Foundation grant CHE9157713 for funding for the server that initially hosted ChemBoard. We also acknowledge the Hope College Office of Computing and Information Technology for the current server, network access, and WWW access.

1. Hope College ChemBoard. http://www.chem.hope.edu/chemboard (accessed Oct 1998).

2. Paulisse, K.; Polik, W. Discus, version 2.50; Hope College: Holland, MI, 1998; available from http://www.chem.hope.edu/discus.

3. Tissue, B.; Earp, R.; Yip, C.-W.; Anderson, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 446.

4. Netscape Navigator, versions 2.0 and higher; Netscape Communications Corporation: Mountain View, CA, 1998; available from http://www.netscape.com.

5. Internet Explorer, versions 3.0 and higher; Microsoft Corporation: Redmond, WA, 1998; available from http://www.microsoft.com.

6. Brooks, D.; Liu, D; Walter, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 123.

7. Woolley, D. Conferencing Software for the Web. http://www.thinkofit.com/webconf (accessed Oct 1998).

8. Stevens, K.; Stevens, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 923.

9. Moore, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 1021.

10. Malikowski, S. In Web-Based Instruction; Khan, B. H., Ed.; Educational Technology Publications, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997, 283-294.