Videoconferencing Out on a Lim

Lit Review: This is a post in a series focusing on the research studies on videoconferencing.

Newman, D. L., Du, Y., Bose, M., & Bidjerano, T. (2006). A Content Analysis of Videoconference Integration Plans. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Orlando, FL.

Authors: Newman, Dianna L.; Du, Ying; Bose, Mohua; Bidjerano, Temi
Title of paper: A Content Analysis of Videoconference Integration Plans
Publication year: 2006
Database source: EdITLib
Name of journal: N/A
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: This study analyzed 46 lesson plans by teachers developed around content providers’ programs. These were part of the ProjectView grant that ended in 2005. The integration lesson plans are online here.

Theoretical Framework/References:
Several references are used to make the case that museusm already have educational content for schools, videoconferencing provides access to those resources, students participating in a videoconference engage in higher order thinking skills, and videoconferences enrich curriculum with an “active learning environment” and by “facilitating inquiry-based learning”. (p. 2). Two noteworthy references I hadn’t found already were Newman et. al 2004 and Silverman & Silverman 1999.

Methods, Sample, Variables/Case:
Content analysis was conducted on 46 lesson plans from New York State. The lesson plans were created by 63 teachers and educational consultants from 25 school districts. The lessons featured 26 content providers. A coding sheet was used to analyze the lessons. It’s included in the paper and has checkboxes for the various types of learning experiences and resources included in the lessons.

Findings:
The majority of the lesson emphasis (time) was on pre-conference preparation.

The most popular methods of instruction were the structured discussion/socratic method (65%). Next were lecture/direct instruction (46%), teacher demonstration (44%), and constructivism (43%). p. 4

Traditional modes of learning were used more leading up to the conference, and the student-centered constructive learning was used more after the videoconference.

The lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were used more in the pre-conference activities, and the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were used more in the post-conference activities.

Rubrics, projects, and worksheets were the most popular assessment techniques used by the teachers.

Author/Audience: The authors are connected with the NYIT EEZ, which is a strong content provider support program in New York. The audience was the conference attendees, so people interested in educational technology and teacher education.

Questions/Thoughts/Implications:

Quotes: “The videoconference session may be considered as a catalyst for promoting higher levels of thinking during post videoconference sessions.” p. 5.

The videoconferences were used to “extend” and “enrich” the study. p. 5 But before you protest about those words, check this: students would be “exposed to richer alternative sources of information, real artifacts and animals, meet external experts, and get their questions answered.” And videoconferencing leads to “a more dynamic and interactive form of learning” p. 5.

This article emphasizes the importance of preparation for videoconferences, as well as essential component of wrap-around lessons to accompany videoconferences. Using a videoconference as a stand-alone “fun” activity is not appropriate! I really like the Project VIEW focus on teachers creating lessons to support their experiences with content providers. 

Note to self: This is a great article for the week on preparing students in my online class, Planning Interactive Curriculum Connections.

Lit Review: This is a post in a series focusing on the research studies on videoconferencing.

Kubasko, D., Jones, M. G., Tretter, T., & Andre, T. (2007). Is it Live or is it Memorex? Students’ Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication with Scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 495 - 514.

Authors: Kubasko, Dennis; Jones, M. Gail; Tretter, Thomas; Andre, Thomas
Title of article: Is it Live or is it Memorex? Students’ Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication with Scientists
Publication year: 2007
Database source: InformaWorld
Name of journal: International Journal of Science Education
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: The study compared students’ interaction with scientists via email and via real-time conferencing. The interactions were accompanied by real-time access to live data to remotely control an atomic force microscope (for the realtime group) and recorded experiments with the microscope (for the via email group). Both groups gained in their knowledge of viruses. Students in the asynchronous group asked more inquiry and interpretation questions than the synchronous group. All of the students were one-on-one with the scientist and NetMeeting was the synchronous method.

Theoretical Framework/References: Theoretical frameworks referenced include inquiry-based learning and hands-on science learning; as well as Vygotsky’s social constructivism. Several references are used to compare synchronous and asynchronous online learning.

Methods: The students participated in the instruction - learning about nanotechnology, then working through stations to conduct experiments and interview the scientists (twice), and finally writing a newspaper article about what they learned.

Data was collected from the students interactions. The live interactions were video taped and transcribed. The asynchronous email communications were captured for analysis. The students’ interactions with the experiment (live or replayed) were also captured for analysis.

Knowledge assessments were used before and after the activity and the newspaper articles were analyzed for content.

Sample: Eighty five biology students from four high school science classes in one school. The classes were randomly assigned to synchronous and asynchronous groups.

Findings:

• Both groups asked the same number of questions.
• The content of the asynchronous questions were most frequently about inquiry/interpretation.
• The majority of the synchronous questions were informal and about the scientist, personally.
• In both groups there was a significant shift from two-dimensional to three-dimensional understandings of the viruses.
• Both groups understood the actual shape of the viruses better.
• The asynchronous students wrote much longer articles for the newspaper than the synchronous group.
• The asynchronous group made significantly more statements about what they learned or knew in their articles.

Questions/Thoughts/Implications:
The researchers’ found these results encouraging, since providing this access to students is easier and cheaper using the replayed experiments and email communication vs. live experiments and live interaction with the scientists.

The researchers called the synchronous group students’ fascination with the live interaction the “actor phenomenon”. The scientist in some cases was more interesting to the students than the experiment. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on your learning goals!

The researchers believe “future research needed to document how students can benefit most from communicating with scientists. What aspects of communication with scientists impact knowledge of science versus other variables such as attitudes, knowledge of science processes, knowledge of science careers, or images of scientists?” p. 17-18. Cross reference with McCombs’ evaluation and Shaklee’s study.

It’s really interesting how the email was more formal and thought out. There’s certainly something to be said for thinking about the questions ahead of time. See McCombs’ study.  In this study, it doesn’t appear that the live interaction students had a chance to think carefully about their questions. I wonder how this would compare, say, to the live interaction around a taped program like COSI Columbus’ In Depth Autopsy program. This article was especially interesting since my rant about asynchronous vendors knocking synchronous technologies. Asynchronous can be more thoughtful, yet synchronous has an energy and excitement to it. Which is better? What about the visuals? In this study, the visuals were the same - both groups could see the experiments. Certainly something to keep thinking about!

Lit Review: This is a post in a series focusing on the research studies on videoconferencing.

McCombs, G. B., Ufnar, J. A., & Shepherd, V. L. (2007). The Virtual Scientist: Connecting University Scientists to the K-12 Classroom through Videoconferencing. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(1), 62-66.

Author: McCombs, Glenn B.; Ufnar, Jennifer A.; Shepherd, Virginia L.
Title of article: The Virtual Scientist: Connecting University Scientists to the K-12 Classroom through Videoconferencing.
Publication year: 2007
Database source: Originally found in ERIC, but the full text is available through the journal.
Name of journal: Advances in Physiology Education
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: This article is essentially an evaluation of Vanderbilt University’s CSO videoconference programs. It suggests that videoconferencing can bridge the gap between formal textbook learning and real world science. It shows that many students do not get to talk to real scientists at school and videoconferencing allows for increased interaction with scientists. Details reports are given of the evaluations that students, teachers, and scientists complete after the experience.

Theoretical Framework/References: No theoretical framework was used, but the article references Amirian’s lit review, Cavenaugh’s meta-analysis, Greenberg’s lit review, Heath’s lit review, Scott Merrick’s Innovate article, and some articles on the “no significant difference” phenomenon. Sorry, no links at the moment, but I’ll be adding blog notes on these articles in the future.

Methods, Sample, Variables/Case: The article describes the program in detail. It also includes survey data on future participation and scientist accessibility, responses regarding technical issues, and responses regarding the impact of videoconferencing. Interestingly, this is the first article I’ve found that surveyed the experts who were presenting the videoconference (in a content provider situation).

Findings: Overall the experts, students and teachers were satisfied with the experience and would participate again.
Author/Audience: The audience is readers of the journal Advances in Physiology Education, so basically scientific educators, probably more at the university level.

Questions/Thoughts:
In tiny print at the bottom of the article, it says: “The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment
of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.” Very interesting.

p. 65. The most successful VCs are the ones where the teachers have prepared the students and the students have prepared questions ahead of time to ask.

There’s a lot of detail on how they organize and run the program that would be interesting to other content providers getting started.

Lit Review: This is a post in a series focusing on the research studies on videoconferencing.

Ba, H., & Keisch, D. (2004). Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Learning: Evaluating the Seatrek Distance Learning Project. Retrieved Febuary 11, 2008, from http://cct.edc.org/report_summary.asp?numPublicationId=177

Author: Harouna Ba and Deborah Keisch
Title of article: Bridging the gap between formal and informal learning: Evaluating the SeaTrek distance learning project.
Publication year: 2004
Source: Center for Children and Technology
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: This article is an external evaluation of Mote Marine Laboratory’s SeaTrek program.

Methods:
The evaluation study examined “the impact of SeaTrek on students’ perceptions of science as an engaging discipline and student reaction to inquiry-based learning approaches” as well as how the project is usable within school settings. p. 1.

Data was collected via interviews, focus groups, observations and surveys from two Florida schools that participate in the project. The schools have different profiles. Observations were collected on seven sessions at the schools, and three sessions from SeaTrek. Online surveys were send to all educators who had participated in SeaTrek programs.

The data was anaylzed for emergent themes to provide a detailed report of the experiences.

The qualitative study cannot be expected to be representative of the target population, nor can them be generalized to the entire population of SeaTrek teachers, not to mention teachers connecting to content providers in general.

Findings:
The programs seemed to target teachers with a high level of technology access and literacy. Maybe not target, but those are the teachers most likely to use these programs and probably more likely to fill out a survey about it. In addition, there was generally a “school-based Instructional Technology Facilitator” who worked with the teachers and with Mote Marine. Sound familiar?! There’s the critical role of the coordinator again!

Teachers felt that the videoconferences motivated students to learn more about how scientists work, and increased their interest in science. The instructional materials helped them better understand the field of science (p. 5).

Some of the teachers found the materials really helpful for helping the students learn, and other didn’t. The reviews were mixed on this. Maybe because some teachers find time to use the materials as a preparation for the VC, and others don’t. p. 9 The teachers who used the materials to prepare were enthusiastic about the program as a whole. Interesting lesson on preparation isn’t it?!

The evaluation contains specifics on preferences for this program over that program, and teachers’ reactions to the materials.

Teachers reported scheduling as a critical factor. They need to schedule programs when they are studying the program not whenever the provider can offer it. The teachers wanted to pick their own time slots for the programs. It sounds like SeaTrek used to schedule their programs in sequence and schools participated in several in a row. Now you can mostly schedule them when you want if they aren’t booked up already.

The program offers students a chance to interact with real scientists which is highly motivating for students and encourages their interest in science. Sounds like a worthy result to me!

Issues to address included scheduling, age appropriateness of programs, identity of the content provider. That’s an interesting one. I see the evaluations come in from my teachers and they often forget which place is offering the program. Hmm. What are the implications for content providers? These results would be helpful to all content providers hoping to improve their programs.

It’s interesting that the study recommended the content provider provide more tech support to schools. This one is interesting too. Can content providers really do that?

Author/Audience: This report was written as an evaluation for Mote Marine and I’m sure they used it as a tool to continue improving their programs. It’s posted online so we can learn from it too.

Cross References: This is quoted in the new textbook on videoconferencing by Newman, Silverman, etc, but not in the Alberta Lit Review or any of the earlier ones, because it wasn’t published yet.

Questions/Thoughts:
I wonder how many other content providers have commissioned this type of evaluation and if it’s posted online.

I like the title - the idea that content providers bring informal learning to the classroom formal learning.

Relevance: This article is right on target for my literature review of curriculum videoconferencing and the videoconferences described are targeted to a K-12 audience.

Shaklee, J. M. (1998). Elementary children’s epistemological beliefs and understandings of science in the context of computer-mediated video conferencing with scientists. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.

Author: Janie Mefford Shaklee
Title of dissertation: Elementary children’s epistemological beliefs and understandings of science in the context of computer-mediated video conferencing with scientists.
Publication year: 1998
Database source/direct link: Dissertation Abstracts (in theory this link should go to full text if you are on campus at your university library)
Name of journal: n/a
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main point of the dissertation: Students understandings of science increased based on their brief contact with scientists via 128K ISDN videoconferencing. I wouldn’t call it brief though. Looking at our current practice of one hour “field trips” with content providers, scientists, etc., this study is about a 3-4 week collaboration between teachers, students, and a remote scientist. It’s more like an extended unit of study. Not so brief in my opinion.

Methods: Data were collected with questionnaires, drawings and interviews. Eight elements of the processes of science (ask a question, plan an investigation, employ equipment, use data to construct a reasonable explanation, etc.) were used to operationalize the measurement of student understandings of science.

A pilot study was done first to test the instruments and the administration processes.

“In reality many students have little exposure to the every day work life and reasoning of scientists.” p. 12 Certainly videoconferencing is a way to brings these remote resources to the classroom experience.

The 2-4th grade students in Colorado accessed scientists in New Jersey as part of project PEARL which doesn’t seem to be in existence anymore.

Research questions were: “What is the relationship between children’s epistemological beliefs and their understandings of the processes of science” and “How does understanding of the processes of science change when children are expose to scientists doing science?”

Due to the small sample size (one classroom in a university laboratory school), the results are not generalizable to national, state, or local populations. Also the tests were used with young children for the first time and may need further validation.

p. 77 “The classroom was equipped” with the videoconferencing system, and “was viewed as the children’s habitat, or their learning context.” Look at this! Early in the research on videoconferencing in the curriculum, this study is done with the equipment installed in their native learning “habitat”. We really do need more research on their learning in the classroom vs. transporting to another location to access videoconferencing. I think we all agree from our own experience that it’s better to have access in the classroom / school environment if at all possible.

p. 79 The teachers didn’t just receive the content from the scientists, they “collaborated fully with the scientists in creating science lessons.” Can we say preparation ahead of time?! p. 80 The teachers “continued to provide normal classroom management”. Another crucial element!

The activities via videoconference included asking questions of the scientist, discussing a research question, conducting experiments together, and acting out concepts such as molecules in water, ice or air. It appears from the description that they videoconferenced on a regular basis, possibly weekly. The treatment period was four weeks and “multiple interactive and distance resources were used.” It doesn’t say how many. I would have appreciated a more specific description of what exactly went on during those weeks. (In one place it says three weeks, in another four weeks.)

Literature Review
The literature review provides an overview of the use of the National Science Education Standards and a brief history of science education and an overview of distance education, specifically a brief description of how ISDN technology works.

Interestingly, “the transmitted images are not quite so good as high-definition television. That level of quality requires optical fibers for transmission, which will not be fully available for another decade or two.” Written in 1998. It’s almost a decade later. How are we doing? Seems like we have quite a ways to go for fiber access in all schools. Cost is still a huge factor. I also wonder, what was HD TV like in 1998? I don’t think the author meant HD like we see it now.

The lit review actually has very little research related to videoconferencing. Maybe because there was very little available at the time of writing.

The literature review also covers the methods of assessing the student’s knowledge, including the Draw-a-Scientist-Test which measures students understandings about scientists.

There is also a section in the literature review about the influence of students’ epistemological beliefs on their learning.

Findings:
Several different tests were used to determine a potential change in the students’ understandings of science.

Pre and post tests were given to measure students’ epistemology. A science pre test and post test was given. The children created drawings, and interviews were conducted.

Multiple linear regression was used to determine what proportion of the variance in the total science posttest scores could be explained by their total score and the children’s age.

“The quantitative results indicated the children learned about science from the processl.” p. 115. In journals, students described what they learned from the scientist. “I learned from Dr. Bob that scientists don’t jump to conclusions.” etc.

The author was interested in the “relationship between children’s epistemological beliefs and their understandings of the processes of science,” however the exploratory factor analysis revealed no pattern. So this part of the research didn’t work out, possibly due to the modification of the test for young students, and/or the small sample size.

A dependent samples t-test indicated that the children’s performance in the processes of science “increased significantly from science pretest to science posttest.” Since there was no control group however, the results should be interpreted with caution. This is interesting because the articles I’ve read that refer to this study just report that the an improvement in the students’ science instruction was associated with the videoconferencing.

Another interesting finding was that age was not related to science understanding. The students were in a multi-age classroom, grades 2-4. Their differences in understanding seemed to be more related to their educational experiences than their age. What are the implications here for science instruction?

p. 123 “using this advanced communications technology as a classroom resource is feasible within the regular curriculum”. and “the question remaining is how best to apply this medium.” Do we see it as feasible within the regular curriculum? Do our schools see that? Are we communicating well how best to apply this medium?

The study ends with some very interesting questions. Vygotsky is referenced again, as learning is social in nature and interactions between student and educator are key. “The implementation of this study involved many social interactions among the educational psychologist, the students, the teachers and the scientists. Was it pedagogically valuable?” One of the classroom teachers said that it was most valuable “when we found ourselves doing things and [achieving] understandings which would not have happened without Bob’s expertise.”

Questions/Thoughts:

• Why hasn’t this study been replicated on a larger scale? Maybe as I get further into my reading I will find that it has been done.
• I still find it very interesting that VC research shows up in unlikely places. Not just educational technology research journals. This researcher was more interested in the epistemological understandings of the students, yet used videoconferencing as part of the research.