Advances Vol. 3, No. 1 Student-Identified Strengths and Challenges of Using BlackboardTM for Group Projects in a SocialWork Course Melissa B. Littlefield Abstract: BlackboardTM provides social work educators integrated online communi- cation tools that they can employ to facilitate student learning through features such as e-mail, discussion forums, file exchange, virtual classroom, and links to online resources. This study describes students’ experiences using BlackboardTM to support a group project assignment. The majority of students found it easy to use and useful for the project, and indicated that they would like to use it in other courses. In addi- tion, students gained technical skills as a result of the group project. Students’ group project grades and final course grades were comparable to those in other sections of the same course taught by this investigator. The findings of this study suggest that online technology can be used to facilitate group assignments for MSW students. The benefits include increased efficiency of group functioning and increased accountability of group members. The challenges include technical problems and student resistance to using the technology. Keywords: Social work education, technology, computers, Internet, diversity, racism The proliferation of online educational software packages such as BlackboardTM provides socialwork educators integrated communication tools to facilitate student learning through features such as e-mail, discussion forums, file exchange, virtual classroom, and links to online resources. BlackboardTM may be employed in social work courses to support group project assignments that require frequent communication and interaction among stu- dents. Scheduling difficulties and insufficient time pose a serious challenge to col- laborative work on group projects outside of class. Many MSW students juggle courseworkand field instructionwithpaidemployment and family responsibilities. At regional schools, greater driving distances and long distance phone charges create additional challenges. BlackboardTM can help students overcome these obstacles by facilitating ongoing interaction outside of class and between group meetings. This study described students’ experiences using BlackboardTM for group proj- ects in a social work course about racism and diversity. A qualitative study was undertaken to elicit student-identified strengths and challenges associated with using online technology for this purpose. 72 Melissa B. Littlefield, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor, School of SocialWork, University ofMaryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland 21201. Copyright© 2002 Advances in SocialWorkVol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2002) 72-83. Indiana University School of SocialWork. 73 LITERATURE REVIEW The promise of online technology for social work education lies in its capability to support adult learning processes. Andragogy is the art and science of helping adults to learn. According to Crook and Brady (1998), strategies that promote col- laborative learning, self-directed learning, and the immediate application of newly acquired knowledge and skills are key to andragogical approaches. Online technology offers new formats for delivering course materials and facilitating ongoing interaction among students and between students and instructors that are congruent with andragogical approaches. Social work educators have begun to employ online technology in courses about those addressing human diversity (Miller-Cribbs & Chadiha, 1998); research (Stocks & Freddolino, 1998; 2000); introduction to social work (Gasker & Cascio, 2000); psychopathology (Crook & Brady, 1998); and social work with task groups, organizations, and communities (Crook & Brady, 1998). Online technolo- gy has been employed to provide course materials, including lectures (Stocks & Freddolino, 1998; 2000;Wernet, Olliges, & Delicath, 2000), lecture outlines (Crook & Brady, 1998; Schoech, 2000), web pages with links to other web sites and docu- ments that illustrate course concepts (Miller-Cribbs & Chadiha, 1998; Schoech, 2000), and for posting student work to share (Schoech, 2000). Online technology including listservs, e-mail, discussion forums, and online assignments have been used to enable students to collaboratively process course content and to extend class discussions (Crook & Brady, 1998; Faux & Black-Hughes, 2000; Gingerich, Abel, D’Aprix, Nordquist & Riebschleger, 1999; Miller-Cribbs & Chadiha, 1998; Stocks & Freddolino, 1998; 2000;Wernet et al., 2000). Evidence suggests that online interaction increases class participation and enthusiasm for course content and enhances educational relationships (Gasker & Cascio, 2000; Gingerich, et al., 1999; Stocks & Freddolino, 1998; 2000; VanSoest, Cannon, & Grant, 2000). It is particularly beneficial for shy students (VanSoest, et al., 2000) and female students (Gasker & Cascio, 2000). The flexibility in terms of time and space for discussion allows for thoughtful participation, as students have more time to process interactions and prepare their responses (Schoech, 2000). Schoech (2000) found comparable learning outcomes for students in sections taught entirely online compared to those in sections that did not employ online learning strategies. Several authors have reported enhanced student learning as a result of implementing online technology into their courses (Crook&Brady, 1998; Johnson & Huff, 2000; Miller-Cribbs & Chadiha, 1998). Improvements in student technical proficiency have also been reported (Miller-Cribbs & Chadiha, 1998; Stocks & Freddolino, 1998). Despite the numerous benefits, the integration of online technology into social work courses presents significant challenges and raises certain instructional questions. For example, which students benefit from the use of such technology? Wernet, et al. (2000) found that graduate students benefited more from using online technology in a research class than did undergraduates . They also deter- mined that non-traditional students weremore likely than traditional ones to uti- lize online technology when it was available and to perceive it as beneficial. Littlefield/USING BLACKBOARDTM FOR GROUP PROJECTS 74 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK The need for face-to-face interaction appears to be important for some students, but not for others.While Stocks and Freddolino (1998) found that students inMSW research courses taught entirely online experienced the lack of face-to-face inter- action with their classmates as a loss of an important classroom element, Schoech (2000), who taught an online doctoral level course on technology-supported prac- tice, did not. Student-student interaction in online technology-enhanced courses has been relatively unstructured and voluntary. This may contribute to the somewhat less than optimal participation rates reported for students in online interaction and a high volume of exchanges that are not specifically related to course content. For example, some authors report a large proportion of online interactions related to questions about grades, assignments, acknowledgements of receiving messages, and other administrative concerns (Johnson & Huff, 2000; Stocks & Freddolino, 1998). Stocks and Freddolino (1998; 2000) found that providing more prompts for student interaction and self-directed learning increased the number of interactions that were relevant to course content and improved overall student perceptions of the class. A related issue is the need for guidelines regarding the appropriate uses of different types of online technology and the combinations of features necessary to support specific learning tasks. For example, Faux and Black-Hughes (2000) found that providing course materials online without opportunities for student-student interaction resulted in negative student perceptions of the online instructional strategy they employed. Technical problems are a consistent theme in the literature. Students who lack computer skills or who are unable to consistently access the Internet are often blocked from fully participating and generally report negative perceptions of the course, overall. Students tend to experience frustration and anxiety as they develop new technical competencies. Other technical problems that interfere with the learning experience include limited understanding of the capabilities of the online features by instructors, which may result in flawed assignment designs and systemic problems with the software that prohibit executing even the best conceived assignments (e.g., slow connections, system overloads, and crashes). The tiny body of literature on the use of online technology in social work educa- tion provides merely a glimpse of its possibilities and the concomitant pitfalls. To date, it has beenused in very limitedways todeliver course content, to increase stu- dent interaction in processing course materials, and to enhance educational rela- tionships. Only one study has reported using online technology for group projects. Schoech (2000) attempted to use a chat feature for a group debate in a class taught entirely online, but found it unwieldy. This study involves the application of online technology for a group project in a class primarily taught face-to-face in a classroom setting. A qualitative research approachwas adopted to allowadeeper examination of students’ perceptions than is afforded by quantitative analysis, which characterize most previous studies on this topic. 75 METHODS Group Project Design Students in an MSW-level racism and diversity course worked in groups to criti- cally analyze a current issue related to the course. Content included a brief his- torical summary that addressed how oppression and discrimination or socially- constructed difference shaped the issue; an incidence report; theories of causa- tion; identification of current controversies; policy and practice intervention options; and implications for practice development. Students self-selected into groups of three-to-five based on topics they generated in a class brainstorming session. The groups’ research findings were displayed in the form of “digital posters,” in the form of Microsoft PowerPointTM slideshows posted on BlackboardTM and presented at an in-class digital poster forum. Each student was required to complete a weekly journal that documented her or his experience completing the group project. The digital poster accounted for 75% of the group project grade. All students in a given group received the same grade for the digital poster portion of the group project. Grading criteria included thoroughness in addressing the topic, appro- priate utilization of concepts from class to analyze and discuss the issue, and organization and clarity. The journals accounted for the remaining 25% of the group project grade. The group project comprised 30% of the overall course grade. At the inception of the assignment, the instructor created a “group page” in BlackboardTM for each group that contained a set of communication features that only group members could access. These included a discussion forum that enabled any group member to create a virtual space where all group members could post and respond to a particular issue; a “file exchange,” where any group member could upload a computer file in any format for other group members to access (provided that they had the software to open it); and an e-mail feature that allowed for messages to be exchanged within the group. The groups were instructed to utilize their group pages to support their group project work. No specific directions about how they should employ the features were given. Brief instruction on how to use BlackboardTM was provided by the professor in the early class sessions. An online manual was available to students, as well. Students had some prior experience with using BlackboardTM for a previous assignment. No in- class instruction on the use of PowerPointTM was given. However, links from BlackboardTM to online PowerPointTM tutorials were provided. Participants Participants were social work students in one section of a Racism and Diversity course on a large urban campus that enrolls students from a multi-state area on the Eastern Seaboard. Students ranged in age from 25 to 53, with a mean age of 31 years. The majority were female (84%), and predominantly white (58.3%), although 33.3% were African-American. The remaining 8.4% were Asian and Hispanic. Full-time students represented 64%, while 36% were part-time stu- dents. The overwhelming majority of respondents (88%) had Internet access at home, while 12% accessed the Internet at work or from some other location. Littlefield/USING BLACKBOARDTM FOR GROUP PROJECTS 76 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK Measures and Data Collection Procedures Two mechanisms were used to collect relevant data: (1) a self-report question- naire consisting of 13 closed- and open-ended items filled out by students at the end of the project; and (2) a 1,600 to 2,000 word journal where 400 to 500 words were written each week for the four week duration of the project. The question- naire contained demographic items, items about the student’s computing capa- bilities before and after the group project, items about access to computers, three Likert-scale items, and two open-ended questions about the disadvantages of using BlackboardTM for completing group projects and how the professor could havemade the technologymore useful for the group project. Journal content was required to focus on how the student used BlackboardTM to work with his or her group, including information about the strengths and challenges of using the software. Limitations A limitation of this study was a potential social desirability bias in student jour- nals. Students were strongly encouraged to be honest in sharing their feelings about their experiences with BlackboardTM, and most reported both pros and cons of using the technology. However, some students may have been uncom- fortable because their journals were not anonymous and counted toward their final grade. Also, some students may have been very negative because they were resentful about being required to use BlackboardTM. The questionnaires were anonymous and posed less of a threat to validity; however, a few students could be identified based on demographic information (e.g. the only black male in the class). Again, the range of responses from positive to negative, suggested that social desirability did not pose a significant threat. RESULTS Quantitative Analysis Students completed surveys in class at the conclusion of the group project assignment. A total of 25 surveys were returned (response rate of 96%). Table 1 shows the distribution of students’ computing capabilities before and after the group project. Practically all of the students were able to send e-mail and use word processing software prior to the group project, and the majority could send an attached document via e-mail. However, fewer than one-third could use PowerPointTM prior to the group project. Following the group project, there was a 32% increase in students who could send an attachment via e-mail and a 60% increase in those able to use PowerPointTM. Table 2 presents the distribution of students’ evaluation responses. Themajority of students agreed that BlackboardTM was useful in completing their group project, easy to use, and they would like to use it for group projects in other classes. Qualitative Analysis A qualitative analysis of the journals was conducted to identify the major themes and elements concerning how students utilized BlackboardTM to support their group project work, identify the benefits of using the program for this purpose, and uncover problems and pitfalls they encountered. The results of the open- ended survey questions overlapped with the themes identified in the qualitative analysis of the student journals and are therefore not reported separately here. Each student submitted four journal entries for a total of 104 documents that were analyzed. Journals were electronically submitted to the professor in a pop- ular word processed format (e.g., MS Word, WordPerfect) via the “digital drop box” feature of BlackboardTM. Analysis of the journals was facilitated by using AtlasTM, a software program designed for qualitative analysis. First, an open cod- ing process was used to examine, compare, and categorize the data based on their latent content. In the subsequent phase of the analysis, axial coding was used to make connections between categories and pull out themes that natural- ly emerged. Data were systematically reduced to three main themes: (1) how BlackboardTM was employed to support group projects; (2) the strengths of using BlackboardTM; and (3) the challenges of using BlackboardTM. Subthemes were identified within each of these main themes. Using BlackboardTM to Support Group Projects Balancing Online and Face-to-Face Interaction. All of the groups met face-to- face outside of class over the duration of the project; they used BlackboardTM for communicating with each other between meetings. Earlier meetings focused on formulating the topic and work plan. Towards the end of the project, groups met face-to-face to finalize their presentations. They also uniformly met in person to learn PowerPointTM. The following comment illustrates this process. 77 Computing Capabilities Before After Frequency % Frequency % Send e-mail 25 100 25 100 Attach document to e-mail 16 64 24 96 Word processing 24 96 24 96 PowerPointTM 7 28 22 88 Table 1: Percentage Distribution of Students’ Computing Capabilities Before and After Group Project N=25 Survey Item Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree BlackboardTM was 16% 52% 12% 8% 12% useful in completing my group project BlackboardTM was 48% 28% 12% 12% 0% easy to use I would like to use 32% 32% 12% 4% 20% BlackboardTM for group projects in other classes Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Students’ Evaluation Responses N=25 Littlefield/USING BLACKBOARDTM FOR GROUP PROJECTS 78 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK Achieving the appropriate balance between using the BlackboardTM tech- nology and meeting in person, our group worked extremely well together. At first, we were apprehensive about relying solely on BlackboardTM to complete the presentation; however, as time progressed,we discovered that BlackboardTM was helpful in facilitating meetings, posting any completed work, and, of course, communicating in the absence of any member. Our group found it necessary tomeet in the final stages of completing our proj- ect so we could compile and edit our information and create appealing slides. The few groups that did not establish a work plan, deadlines, and procedures for posting and updating documents experienced problems communicating, regardless of the extent to which they employed BlackboardTM. As with any form of communication, BlackboardTM was only useful if everyone in a group used it as prescribed by the group, including checking the group page frequently. Many students found it difficult to have complex discussions or brainstorm online. One student who actively and effectively used BlackboardTM throughout the project felt that the creative process was somewhat stifled due to a lack of reg- ular face-to-face contact with group members. A few expressed a feeling of isola- tion from their groupmembers because the efficiency of BlackboardTM decreased the need to meet frequently. There seemed to be a general consensus that face- to-face contact is a valued aspect of group project work. Meeting in person was viewed as a way to get to know one’s classmates and feel connected to the group. The following comments capture these sentiments: The BlackboardTM system,while good in theory, has mademe feel very dis- connected frommy group. I think this is one of the negative aspects of the system. It doesn’t mandate meeting in person and tends to discourage forming friendships that come out of working together with classmates. But it has allowed me to better manage my time, as it negates having to drive to (campus) or stay very late after class. Use of Specific BlackboardTM Features. E-mail was the feature most often used in the earlier stages of the project, probably due to the fact that most students were familiar with it. Students used e-mail to update each other on the status of their work, schedule meetings, send Internet resources to each other, send drafts of their work, and provide feedback to each other about those drafts. The file exchange was most often used by groupmembers to share their ideas, resources, and drafts of their work. Many students used e-mail in conjunction with the file exchange to inform other group members when they had posted a document. Eventually, some groups moved away from using e-mail in favor of using the discussion forum because it provided a central place for group members to view all messages on a given topic and it automatically organized messages posted there by topic. Students used the discussion forum feature to update their groups on the progress on their tasks and for group problem-solving. It was also used widely to provide feedback to each other on documents that were posted on the file exchange. 79 Strengths of BlackboardTM for Group Projects Improved Group Efficiency. Effective use of BlackboardTM increased the efficien- cy of the group process for most groups. Many students reported being able to accomplish more between meetings as a result of continuous communication. Students were able to share resources and preview groupmembers’ work prior to meeting, thereby eliminating the need to spend valuable in-person group time engaged in these tasks, reducing the number of group meetings, and shortening face-to-face meetings, as illustrated by the following remarks. The BlackboardTM system has been helpful in time management issues that all graduate students face but especially helpful in addressing con- cerns of a full-time working student. It has allowed me to work on the project anytime I have a free moment at the office or after I have finished my paid employment for the day. I have found this extremely helpful and wish my other courses were subscribed to this service. It would help me greatly with the term paper I am working on with two other students for Human Behavior 2. …because of BlackboardTM we were able to stay focused during the meet- ings and they remained short and precise. In other group meetings I have had, we have always met for at least two hours and it would take the first half of the session to get all the information compiled and figure out who would dowhat. I definitely feel that by having BlackboardTM available and being able to communicate before the meetings through e-mail and file exchange, we saved a lot of time in face-to-face meetings. Many students found using BlackboardTM to be easier for contacting their group members than attempting to reach them by phone. …Inever had to deal with telephone answeringmachines (a definite plus) and the complications of reaching a convenient time for all of us to con- verse. …we do not have to make any long distance phone calls…We can respond even faster to each other’s questions and comments over the Internet compared to a phone call” Finally, students found that the links to databases and other Internet resources provided on BlackboardTM by the professor and the university’s library saved them time by helping them locate resources specific to their topic. Increased Accountability. An unanticipated benefit of BlackboardTM was that it seemed to increase the level of accountability of students to their groups. Members who were unable to attend meetings could still participate if they were near a computer. Because there were ways to get information to the group even if they were not present, they were not “off-the-hook” in the eyes of their group members. Even students who did notmissmeetingsmentioned that they felt that BlackboardTM provided them with ways to demonstrate that they were making a contribution to the group. I have found that using BlackboardTM is … particularly helpful when other group members simply can’t meet due to various reasons. BlackboardTM Littlefield/USING BLACKBOARDTM FOR GROUP PROJECTS 80 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK enables allmembers of the group the ability to stay updated and current on the project at hand. BlackboardTM holds all members responsible for com- pleting their part of the project, because all members can communicate and access each other’s information from home, work or school. I have sent back a message to everyone in the group so that they will know that I haven’t abandoned the project and that I am still looking for infor- mation. Challenges of Using BlackboardTM Technical Issues. Some students experienced technical problems that were most likely due to their limited computer skills. They often reported their inability to log on or that the system was down when it was not. Others experienced problems establishing network accounts at the university level, which delayed their online involvement and frustrated them and their group members. These students often needed hands-on technical assistance from the professor and the university tech- nical support staff to resolve their issues. Also, several students exchanged files that were infected with computer viruses. In addition to possibly infecting other group members who received and opened the files on their computers, the cor- rupted files often were illegible when opened. A major barrier for some students was limited access to a computer with an Internet connection at homeorwork. Using BlackboardTM increased the amount of time students needed to spend online.Thosewho could not frequently check their e-mail or their group’s pages in BlackboardTM were at a disadvantage. In addition, students who relied on a dial-up connection to the university server experienced delays orwere unable to log onto the systemduring peak traffic hours.These prob- lems were extremely frustrating for students and sometimes led them to view BlackboardTM negatively and use it infrequently. Resistance to Computer Usage for Interpersonal Communication. Some students were very resistant to using computers in a social work course for which they believe that face-to-face interaction is paramount, in this case, Racism and Diversity. For these students, even the improved efficiency they found in using the program was not persuasive. I am fine with the idea of group projects, I even like and look forward to them, but the idea that I have to communicate with this stupid monitor more than my fellow humans, bothers me. I am dependent on my modem and the Internet more than my brain, this doesn’t seem right or fair. My grade should not be so dependent on my computer literacy. It seems that the whole idea is antithetical to the theories behind group discourse. The idea of a group is to work together and bounce ideas off of one another. If I can’t see the faces of my group members, how will I know how they really feel about my ideas? To be perfectly honest, I feel like the entire conception and organization, as well as the digital nature of this project were highly unorganized. Lack of comfort or skill with using the computer in this capacity led some stu- dents to resist, causing them to delay using the programuntil very late in the proj- ect. However, once they began to use it more frequently, they becamemore com- 81 fortable with it and appreciated the increased efficiency. Ultimately, many of these students conceded that they never would have used the program if it had not been required, but they were glad they did because it helped them to over- come their technophobia and learn valuable new skills, as noted in the following comment: I am grateful for the exposure to BlackboardTM and PowerPointTM that this assignment has givenme. I see this opportunity as an important element of my graduate education. It is something I will take with me and be able to use in my professional career. As a matter of fact, I will be presenting this project to the adoption agencywhere I haveworked… for the past 10 years. DISCUSSION This study described students’ experiences using BlackboardTM to support a group project assignment in a course about racism and diversity. The majority of stu- dents felt that the software was useful in completing the project and easy to use. They indicated that they would like to use it for group projects in other courses. In addition, students improved their technological proficiency as a result of the group project. Students’ group project grades and final course grades were com- parable to other sections of the same course taught by this investigator. This study suggests that online technology can be used to support group assign- ments. The benefits include increased efficiency of group functioning and increased accountability of group members. The challenges include technical problems and resistance to using the technology. The one previous study that addressed employing online technology for group projects found it to be cum- bersome for this purpose (Schoech, 2000). Thismay have been due to the fact that the course in that study was taught entirely online, suggesting that using online technology for group projects may be more appropriate as an adjunct to face-to- face courses. Alternatively, it may be that the some features or combinations of features of online technology aremore appropriate for facilitating group projects. For example, asynchronous communication features, such as discussion forums and e-mail, may be more effective than real-time features, such as chat. Consistent with other studies, this study found that online technology could support self-directed and collaborative learning for social work students. Students used the technology to work in groups to investigate a current issue related to racism and diversity, and to share their findings with their classmates. Given a structured task that required computer-mediated interaction, students employed technology primarily to facilitate their work, rather than for adminis- trative purposes, as was the case in other studies in which the learning task involving online technology was less structured. It is also noteworthy that the vast majority of the students used online tutorials and worked collaboratively outside of class to learn at least some of the techno- logical skills necessary to complete the project (e.g., PowerPointTM, e-mailing attachments). This suggests that despite initial resistance, social work students can learn to use and appreciate technology. Basic training and direction on how theymight employ particular features is beneficial in acclimating students. Itmay also be useful to help students anticipate how computer-mediated interaction Littlefield/USING BLACKBOARDTM FOR GROUP PROJECTS 82 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK may differ from face-to-face interaction, and to offer guidelines for effective online communication. In addition, discomfort and limited proficiencymay prevent stu- dents from voluntarily using available technology, thus, educators may need to make it a requirement in order to ensure participation. Finally, instructors need to anticipate technical problems and ensure that students have adequate computer and Internet access, as well as technical support. Consistent with the findings of other studies, BlackboardTM did not eliminate the need for face-to-face contact, but supplemented it. Until more effective strategies for sustaining educational relationships online and conventions for conveying nonverbal communication are developed, it seems unlikely that computer-medi- ated communication can replace face-to-face interaction in social work educa- tion. However, “cyberculture” is rapidly expanding and such conventions are beginning to emerge in limited forms. For example, Schoech (2000) reported varied success in promoting online relationships in a course taught entirely online; student- designed personal web pages were useful, though online “class parties” were not. Also, America Online Instant MessengerTM allows users to accent their chats with “emoticons,” that is,modified smiley face iconswith facial expressions that convey various emotions. In conclusion, online technology is redefining the educational arena—offering new formats for course delivery and expanded opportunities for students to engage in interactive, self-directed, and experiential learning that is relevant and related to real-world problems. Although research in this area is limited, social work educators can begin to take advantage of the increasingly available online resources on campuses to help students meet their specific course objectives and to introduce them to technology that they are likely to encounter in their profes- sional careers. References Crook, W. P., & Brady, M. J. (1998). Computer-assisted instruction in the classroom: Using a web shell. Computers in Human Services, 15(2/3), 193-208. Faux, T. L., & Black-Hughes, C. (2000). A comparison of using the internet versus lectures to teach social work history. Research on SocialWork Practice, 10(4), 454-466. Gasker, J., & Cascio, T. (2000). Computer-mediated interaction: A tool for facilitating the educational help- ing relationship. The Journal of Baccalaureate SocialWork, 5(2), 145-159. Gingerich,W. J., Abel, E. M., D’Aprix, A., Nordquist, G., & Riebschleger, J. (1999). Using a listserv to extend classroom learning: A content analysis. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 16(4), 1-16. Johnson, M. M., & Huff, M. T. (2000). Students’ use of computer mediated communication in a distance education course. Research on SocialWork Practice, 10(4), 519-532. Miller-Cribbs, J. E., & Chadiha, L. A. (1998). Integrating the Internet in a human diversity course. Computers in Human Services, 15(2/3), 97-108. Schoech, D. (2000). Teaching over the Internet: Results of one doctoral course. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 467-486. Stocks, J. T., & Freddolino, P. P. (1998). Evaluation of a world wide web-based graduate research methods course. Computers in Human Services, 15(2/3), 51-69. Stocks, J. T., & Freddolino, P. P. (2000). Enhancing computer mediated teaching through interactivity: The second iteration of a world wide web based graduate social work course. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 505-518. 83 VanSoest, D., Cannon, R., &Grant, D. (2000). Using and interactivewebsite to educate about cultural diver- sity and societal oppression. Journal of SocialWork Education, 36(3), 463-480. Wernet, S. P., Olliges, R. H., & Delicath, T. A. (2000). Postcourse evaluations ofWebCT (Web Course Tools) classes by social work students. Research on SocialWork Practice, 10(4), 487-504. Author’s Note: Address correspondence to: Melissa B. Littlefield, Ph.D, University of Maryland School of SocialWork, 525 W. Redwood Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 USA. E-mail: mlittlef@ssw.umaryland.edu. Littlefield/USING BLACKBOARDTM FOR GROUP PROJECTS