Videoconferencing Out on a Lim

USLDA Conference: Scalability of Distance Learning Initiatives within Current School Models Resistant to Change by Daryl Diamond, Assistant Director, Enterprise Change Implementation, Broward County Public Schools, FL

6th largest school district in the country; first franchise of Florida Virtual School

She started with a “distance learning program attribute checklist” with keys for implementation. It has five categories:

• Innovation design
• Communication channels
• Time
• Effectiveness
• Leadership capabilities “here’s to the crazy ones”

Some of these ideas come from Comprehensive School Reform.

Scaling isn’t just the number of people using a technology or tool. It’s not just pockets of educational reform.

Coburn’s (2003) Dimensions of Scale

• Spread – increased numbers
• Depth – changes in teachers beliefs and practice
• Sustainability – how does it sustain after reform funding ends
• Shift in Reform Ownership

Think about scaling up vs. going to scale. Going to scale means that it’s integrated into regular practice and becomes the norm.

There are some ways that distance learning is better than face to face - where the online learning model meets multiple intelligences and authentic assessment is used. And face to face is just the lock step workbook page that everyone has to be on the same page by the mideterm.

Do you ever feel like you’re building an airplane in the sky?

Does the distance learning program change the pedagogical principles? Is the project able to continue if funding is pulled?

Broward has videoconferencing systems in all the high schools, used mostly for full courses. They also have VC in the elementary and middle schools. In addition they have a middle & high school level virtual school.

“going to scale” includes changing basic pedagogical practices.

“researchers have been looking at the wrong thing” - only how many teachers are using it? how many students are using it? Instead we should look at how teaching has changed?

We need to move past “it’s innovative, it’s fun, it’s viable, it’s enjoyable”.

Interesting idea she has: use VC to mentor teachers. Both teachers hook up their classes - the mentor teacher teaches both classes while the other teacher learns/observes. It’s implemented in face to face classes to meet the needs of new teachers.

“How many of your programs started with a grant?” What happens when the grant funding dries up?

She sees distance learning as a critical tool to address the mandates for all students to have access to quality learning.

There’s a nice intro to their VC programs here. Their VC courses are supported by web resources.

Then we looked at the checklist again to consider how our programs are going to scale based on the checklist. The checklist isn’t online that I could find, but you can email Daryl - her contact information is on the link at the top.

On a slightly off-videoconferencing topic…. I’ve been teaching an online class, Technology in the Early Elementary Classroom, the last 8 weeks. I love listening to the teachers discuss, create projects, and sharing great ideas with each other. This week there was a discussion of the use of the overhead projector. Kindergarten and 1st grade teachers talked about how students went crazy over it when they first saw it. New to them! And how it helped them follow along in using their math books, etc.

I thought about the tech coordinators I’ve heard wanting to get rid of all the overhead projectors in their school and replace with [insert preferred technology here].

And I wondered, how often do we really stop and listen to the teachers? How often do we observe how they are actually using the tools in their classroom (without judging teaching philosophy or strategy)? How often do we think carefully about how teachers will still do their great work minus a tool we’re tired of? Do we really listen and hear the potential impact of technology decisions on teachers?

——

One of the ways I want to listen to my teachers this year is to do a little end of the year survey. Actually two surveys. I’ll send the Zoomerang links to my regular VC listserv for my teachers, with a link for if you did a VC this year, and if you didn’t. I want to ask them some questions. To see how we can serve them better.

How are you listening to the teachers you serve?

At the MACUL 08 Conference this year, I ran into some of our local tech coordinators and we chatted about the progress of videoconferencing in their districts.

We commiserated about the great fact that the school level videoconference coordinators are doing fine on their own, and the sad fact that we don’t get to see the videoconferences as much anymore. We miss “running the show” for our teachers, but the increased usage is a testament to the fact that the new model of a school level champion, with district and educational service agency level support for that person, is a successful model. The support tree structure makes it easy for teachers to participate, and hence we have greater use of videoconferencing.

After listening to Gary Stager at the MACUL 08 Conference, I went up to ask him about the handouts from his session yesterday that I missed.  In the course of the conversation, he said to me,

“Why do people identify themselves with just one technology?”

He was referring to some of the ideas in the Web 2.0 session he did yesterday that I had missed. He didn’t mean to, but he challenged my own practice.

It made me think! (Which I think is the point of listening to Gary Stager.)

I like to refer to myself as a “one technology girl”, referring to videoconferencing. I try to keep my blog focused on videoconferencing. Every time I go somewhere or see something or learn something, I’m trying to see how it ties to videoconferencing.

I want to say, how can we make our videoconferences more constructive? But I feel like I’m coming at it from the wrong angle, by starting with the technology. On the other hand, it seems that videoconferencing is a perfect fit for social constructivist learning because it’s a communication technology. I need to keep thinking about this….

One of Gary’s points was “less us, more them.”

Some beginning thoughts are:

• what if the kids picked who they wanted to connect to instead of the teacher?
• what if the kids researched to find and request an expert to connect with them via videoconferencing?
• how often do we have the kids generate the activities and interaction?
• with the KC3 programs, do the kids decide how to represent the topic? do they decide the topic?
• what structures like MysteryQuest or Holiday Challenges could we create that are based on even more constructivist principles?

Gary also emphasized the importance of good prompts. We need more good prompts for teachers and students using videoconferencing. What tough questions could help them head down to a path of interaction with experts and/or peers?

These are just a few beginning random thoughts stirred up after listening to Gary today.  Off to the next session, but these ideas will keep simmering….

One of the questions I hear all the time is, “How do you motivate teachers to use videoconferencing?”

Here’s an answer from one of my veteran RUS Grant videoconference coordinators. Linda Johnson is the librarian at Mars Elementary, a K-2 school with 361 students and 25 teachers. At this moment they have 43 student events scheduled for the 2007-2008 school year and I know that several more are in the works. So this school is quite successful.

That said, here is a comment from Linda in my class, Kid2Kid Videoconference Connections.

While trying to get my teachers interested in having VC Pals, I had to make a point to let them know I only wanted them to share things they already do. Many times when the students do their writings they share as a classroom but that’s it. By sharing during a vc, maybe the work will become more meaningful because they are sharing it with another group of students.

Linda is planning multiple pen pal connections with a school in Ontario, Canada, and so far they are going very well.

So, keep this in mind. Teachers are really busy! The curriculum is really jam packed! So whatever teachers do with videoconferencing, it has to meet curriculum goals and fit tightly into what they are doing.

How do you encourage teachers to use videoconferencing? and what strategies do you use to help them find and create VCs that fit their curriculum?

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

Wakefield, C. K. (1999). Site facilitator roles in videoconferencing: Implications for training. Unpublished Ed.D., University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Author: Wakefield, Carman Kay
Title of dissertation: Site facilitator roles in videoconferencing: Implications for training.
Publication year: 1999
Database source: ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts
My Codes: VCImplementation, VCCourseDelivery

Main Point: Site facilitators are critical to successful videoconferencing of all kinds. They need specific traits and skills, and they need on-the-job training or job-shadowing as the ideal form of training.

Definitions: “The site facilitator, for the purpose of this study, is the support person that is in the videoconferencing room along with the main speaker.”

Methods & Findings: The study compares site facilitators’ views of their role with that of the “larger distance learning community” and finds the implications for site facilitator training.

The researcher interviewed via email 27 site facilitators to learn about their responsibilities, their position, their routine, required skills, training, and how they would train someone else for the same position.

The five major roles that emerged from the first part of the study were technical expert, instructional assistant, liaison, scheduler, and trainer/consultant.

There is some evidence that the study included site facilitators who use vc for more than traditional course delivery. “I look for ways to make use of our facility through electronic field trips, meeting other schools, etc.” p. 33. Also p. 39, the main purpose for the use of the room ranged from meetings (top) and guest speakers (next) to courses in the middle to research at the bottom. Definitely a broad set of purposes and uses in this research.

They felt the best way to learn the job was “by job shadowing and on-the-job training.” p. 35.

The follow up questionnaire was sent to a group of distance learning professionals who were “in charge” of their ITV systems. They came from public, private, government, higher education, K12, medical fields, vendors, conference centers,the military and more. 83 responses were collected from the listserv.

There’s a nice set of trait words ranked in this order for what would be important: reliable, problem solver, technology literate, not easily panicked, organized, friendly, great communicator, flexible. Those are the top 8.

Literature Referenced
Many studies are referenced as to the critical role of the site facilitator and the lack of administrative/funding support of this position.

Author/Audience:

Cross References:

Questions/Thoughts:

Site facilitators thought it was important to be patient and not easily panicked! “This  is, for all practical purposes, a customer service position.” p. 58.

There is need for “follow-up support when learning this position.” p. 59. It can’t be just a one-shot vendor training.

Key components for training & support of the site facilitator:

• manuals / reference for problems
• videoconference etiquette
• someone to call if they have trouble
• informed of instructional resources and how to use them
• registration and policies and procedures
• emphasis on communication skills, patience, a positive attitude and politeness
• scheduling procedures and all the limitations etc. of the room/equipment
• access to the calendar
• preferably some knowledge of VC literature
• ability to train the instructor

Relevance: This study is about site facilitators for all areas, not specifically on K12. However many of the principles seem to apply to the K12 videoconference coordinator supporting mainly curriculum videoconferencing.

Since reading the last dissertation, and since conversations with colleagues at the CILC Symposium, I’ve been thinking about the purpose of videoconferencing and the location of equipment. How does this sound for a few straightforward guidelines:

• If you want to do curriculum videoconferencing, start in the elementary schools.
• If you want to do shared classes, start at the high school.
• If you want to do meetings, put it in a board/meeting room, and forget about ever using it with kids.

In our county we have used videoconferencing predominantly for curriculum videoconferencing. We do state wide meetings often, we’re starting to do more PD for VC over VC, and 3-5 times a year we might offer some PD that isn’t VC-related. Early on we had a couple shared classes, but the districts involved ended up hiring teachers for those subject areas. Our county has a really strong Career Technical Education program where students spend half their day in usually an onsite CTE program. These programs are shared among the districts in the county, and usually the students are driving to their program. Because this model is so successful, there is little need for shared classes. So we sold our districts on curriculum videoconferencing and we support it that way too, with support, training, funding, and programming directed to that end.

In other service areas, such as ISD B & C in the study I just read, shared classes are the focus of videoconferencing and are highly successful with all of the districts participating. The purpose in many ways defines the usage, installation, and implementation of the equipment.

I don’t know very many places that install videoconferencing in administration buildings and/or board rooms. I have heard several rumblings from Ontario that many school boards are using VC predominantly for meetings. It’s intriguing to me. How is it that these schools haven’t heard of or experienced curriculum videoconferencing? How is it that they aren’t seeing the vision? Do vendors explain other possibilities of VC when they sell schools equipment? Or do they just tell what they know only? How did these schools find out about VC to only envision it for meetings? Maybe local businesses? How can we spread the word of curriculum videoconferencing in a way that spreads the vision to schools who have VC but don’t realize the amazing engaging experiences they could offer to their students? We need more articles published in technology magazines! I guess our work is cut out for us!

What do you think? Do you agree with these guidelines? Can you think of other purposes? 

Sweeney, Marilyn Ann. (2007). The use of videoconferencing techniques which support constructivism in K–12 education. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Lowell, United States — Massachusetts. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3257352).

Author: Marilyn Ann Sweeney.
Title of article: The use of videoconferencing techniques which support constructivism in K–12 education.
Publication year: 2007
Database source: ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts.
Name of journal: n/a
My Codes: VCContentProviders, VCProjects, VCImplementation.
Main point of the dissertation: Main research question: Is there a relationship between K-12 educator preference for constructivist learning theory and their use of videoconferencing to support constructivism in their videoconferencing lessons? The study looked at four constructivism constructs: prior knowledge, mental models, interaction, and student directed active learning and how those constructs are applied in videoconferencing.

Methods. A survey was used that was built on three other research studies: a survey by Hayden (1999) to find links between constructivism and videoconferencing, a survey by Ravitz, Becker and Wong (2000) to see if distance learning educators used constructivism, and a constructivism preference tool by Taylor and Fraser (1991).

p.23 gives a great rationale for a nationwide sample and using a listserv to administer the survey. Videoconferencing is an emerging technology so a nationwide sample is logical to get more respondents. Also these educators are already using technology, so a listserv is a good way to get to them.

Data analysis techniques included using Cronbach’s alpha to determine the reliability of the two survey sections. Correlation, linear regression, and ANOVA were used to analyze the videoconferencing techniques and constructivism preferences.

Thoughts on the Sample. I remember this survey coming across the listservs. It’s interesting that only 63 educators responded to the survey. I think it’s because so many on the VC listservs aren’t classroom teachers - they are media specialists and tech coordinators - those responsible for videoconferencing. I don’t remember if I finished filling it out or not, but I remember looking at it and thinking that the questions didn’t apply to me because I wasn’t teaching. I wonder how many other coordinators did the same. How many of us forwarded the survey to the teachers we support? I can’t remember if I did or not, but there may have been other ways to get a higher sample of actual classroom teachers.

Further research could include replicating this study in a smaller geographical area but with more teachers. For example, last year we had over 700 videoconferences in our service area. I would guess that’s at least 300 teachers who participated in videoconferences. I can think of a few other educational service agencies who have a lot of teachers using VC and could help with getting more teachers to fill out the survey.

It’s interesting also (p. 71) that half of the respondents had done 20 or more videoconferences. They must have been more willing or more likely to fill out the survey. I can think of many teachers in my area who have only done 1-5 VCs.

Survey Development
How the survey was developed. A chart on pages 61-62 show the correlation between the survey question, the constructivist construct (prior knowledge, etc.), the major theorist and the researcher. These survey questions would be great tools to think about for every videoconference as part of the evaluation. For example:

• Was the videoconference preceded by classroom work on the topic?
• Have the students completed readings about the topic prior to the videoconference?
• Did the students take notes or fill in an activity sheet during the videoconference?
• Did the students write about what they learned in the videoconference?

These are all great questions. Ones we should think about more as we design and evaluate our participation in videoconferences. I guess also these vibe with me because I’m a constructivist at heart.

Findings.
“The key finding of this study is that the use of videoconferencing techniques has a positive relationship to the educator’s preference for constructivism. The greater the preference for constructivism in their classroom, the more frequent is the use of videoconferencing techniques, which support constructivism.” The higher the constructivism preferences of the educator, the more videoconferencing techniques they used. (β=.536, n=39, p<.001) p. 106. This is really interesting!! How many times have you heard coordinators ask - how do we get teachers to use VC more? Maybe some of them don’t see the connection between their teaching preferences and goals and the results that can be achieved with a videoconference? I don’t think that just telling them they can connect with NASA or the Columbus Zoo will cut it for training. Maybe this is why the immersive constructivist learning environment created by Jazz is so powerful. I wonder if it’s powerful enough to change opinions about constructivist learning? A before and after survey of beliefs about constructivism and VC would be interesting, especially if coupled with a comparison of use of VC before and after Jazz.

93% of the respondents precede their videoconferences with work on the topic. p. 84 We know that preparation ahead of time is critical to the success of the VC, so this fits well with our experiences.

I wish that interactivity were more defined. 81% of respondents give students the opportunity to ask their own questions of the remote end. p. 84. But what else is interactivity? The MysteryQuest format is highly interactive as the students have to engage with each other’s content. Simulation programs such as the Challenger Learning Center e-Missions are also interactive at a higher level than just Q&A. Roxanne has been exploring this with her Holiday Extravaganza videoconferences. I guess another study would be to really delve into the definitions and forms of interactivity. Many want to know other ways to increase interactivity besides such asking questions.

The respondents preferred constructivist teaching strategies that include students talking with other students about how to solve problems (98%) and teaching interesting things about the world outside of the school (91%). p. 90. What would be even more interesting is to give this survey to all the teachers in 2 or 3 schools. It would be interesting to see if the teachers who aren’t using videoconferencing score lower on these items.

Another interesting finding is that fewer respondents involved students in the planning for the videoconference even though they preferred that in the constructivist section of the survey. Could it be because they don’t know how to involve students in planning a VC? or that the VCs they are participating in actually don’t have room for students to plan the VC? think of content provider programs. Most of them don’t have too much room for student planning other than bringing their own questions. Whereas projects such as Monster Match, Holiday Extravaganza, and Read Around the Planet have a high potential for teachers to involve students in planning for the VC. If teachers choose, students can brainstorm the activities and presentations to share with the partner class.

Coordination/Implementation
“54% of the respondents reported being self-taught which suggests on-site support could supplement the other avenues.” p. iii. Hmm. Is this another evidence of the need for a school level videoconference coordinator? Someone IN the building to assist teachers in using VC in their curriculum?

Lit Review
One way to organize a literature review is by history of videoconferencing. This is how Sweeney organized her lit review.

Definitions
Definitions included are videoconferencing, ISDN, IP, Interactive TV, distance education, e-learning and listserv. (p.20).

I find it interesting that Sweeney uses the word “conduct” to describe teachers who participate in videoconferences: “. When you participate in a videoconference with a content provider, do you consider yourself as “conducting” the videoconference, or do you think the content provider is conducting it?

Questions/Wonderments I Have

• I need to think more about Vygotsky’s concept of social constructivism and how it is evidenced in the various videoconferences I’m involved in - ASK and MysteryQuest for example.
• I really need to think about how we’ve implemented social constructivism in the Jazz class.

This was a really interesting dissertation and is worth a skim through if you can find some time to access it!

This afternoon I had a chat with one of my videoconference coordinators, Linda Johnson, coordinator for Mars Elementary, Berrien Springs. Mars is a K-2 building with 25 teachers. Last year was their first year with videoconferencing, and they did 44 videoconferences. This year they already have 26 programs scheduled.

A few weeks ago I sent a collaboration request from a school in Ontario to Linda. The Ontario school originally wanted to do one exchange, but now they have 10 exchanges in the process of scheduling. Here’s the interesting part: instead of the two videoconference coordinators hashing it out, Linda gave her teachers their Ontario partner’s email address. The teachers are negotiating their times & submitting several potential times to the coordinator to finalize the schedule after checking the district’s VC calendar.

As we all know, scheduling is the bane of videoconferencing. When we first started videoconferencing, I did the scheduling for all of our schools. This year is the first year I’ve started training my videoconference coordinators to do their own scheduling. And now Linda is sharing some of that scheduling labor with her teachers. It seems evident that the way to sustain growth is to keep training the next level down to create more independence in scheduling & planning collaborations.

Do you know any other tips for several collaborative projects between the same two schools?

As the use of videoconferencing increases in schools, the challenge of supporting the videoconferences also grows larger. Here’s a comment from one of my media specialists (finishing up the Kid2Kid Videoconference Connections online class).

I am a media specialist and I think folks sometimes forget that the media center is my classroom, not just a location for videoconferencing. Luckily, we have the option of our science lab and the classroom as alternative vc sites; however, if a vc is scheduled during one of my class periods, I am running to make the test call and set up as well as cover my class. I am fortunate in that a few of my teachers have been enthusiastic about learning the set up of the equipment and are comfortable using the remote and running the actual program themselves. I don’t always have to be in the room while the vc is taking place. It always seems to work out even though it can be hectic at times.

Whether a media specialist or a teacher is the coordinator for videoconferencing, it still helps to have other teachers in the building trained and comfortable with the equipment. This means using it often enough to get over the fear of it! There’s a circle of support: the more you use it, the more comfortable people are, the easier it is, to use it more! What do you think? Does this scenario happen in your area too?