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.

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.

Cifuentes, L., & Murphy, K. L. (2000). Promoting multicultural understanding and positive self-concept through a distance learning community: cultural connections. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 69-83.

Author: Lauren Cifuentes and Karen L. Murphy
Title of article: Promoting multicultural understanding and positive self-concept through a distance learning community: cultural connections.
Publication year: 2000
Database source: SpringerLink
Name of journal: Educational Technology Research and Development
My Codes: VCProjects

Main Point: Students engaged in year long videoconference collaboration with students of another culture (within the same state) exhibit higher multicultural understanding and greater positive self-concept.

Methods: A qualitative case study method was used to examine two classrooms that connected for nine units over the course of a school year. Data collected included the students’ multimedia portfolios, written reflections of instructors and students involved, and interviews of the students.

Findings:

• The two teachers were from different cultural backgrounds, and the collaboration created a strong collaborative relationship between them that benefited their instruction.
• The teachers mentored each other throughout the year.
• The students grew in their multicultural understanding.
• The students grew in their cultural sensitivity, as evidenced in their comments at the beginning of the year vs. the end of the year.
• The students loved the technology and were motivated by it. The interaction with the more well-to-do students inspired the at-risk border students to want to attend college.
• The students’ misconceptions about each other were dispelled.
• The students became more confident in their speaking, poise, and behavior on camera. The rest of the students in their schools looked up to them.

Author/Audience: The authors are educational technology professors writing for an educational technology audience.

Thoughts:

Both of Cifuentes and Murphy’s articles feature team teaching as a key component to collaborative projects.

The sustained learning described in Cifuentes’ two articles contrast with the short term one hour experiences in Lee’s study. This makes me think I should follow-through when my teachers are interested in a sustained learning experience. It isn’t too often. Their schedules are so busy. What would it take to establish and facilitate long term collaborations like these? One of my local teachers put out an ad on the listservs for a year-long partner and no one responded. Is it too hard to commit up front without knowing someone? We need to think and experiment in this area more. Two other differences between the activities in the two students are: a much closer age of the participants and the Cifuentes’ activities are more social constructivist.

Many of the activities included self-expression and sharing those expressions. These experiences were clearly key to understanding the other students and becoming friends with them. Don’t you think sometimes we think that that Q&A part of a project such as Read Around the Planet isn’t “curriculum related” when they talk about favorite music, after school activities etc.? But that is important learning too. It helps them realize they are part of a global community and to appreciate and respect differences and similarities.

The student empowerment results are stunning considering the at-risk students studied. It’s so frustrating for me when teachers cancel a program because their students are misbehaving. It seems these types of experiences are just what the students need. It’s motivating and interesting to them. This article defines the results in student positive self-concept and empowerment that can come from a sustained telecommunications project. Seems worth the trouble to me!

One of the references included was a teacher testimonial published online. It’s on the 4Teachers.org site: Bringing cultures closer with technology. If you don’t have access to the databases, this is the next closest thing to get the gist of what was done in this collaboration/study.

Yost, N. (2001). Lights, Camera, Action: Videoconferencing in Kindergarten. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference.

Author: Nancy Yost
Title of paper: Lights, Camera, Action: Videoconferencing in Kindergarten.
Publication year: 2001
Database source: ERIC (at the end of the PDF)
Name of journal: n/a
My Codes: VCProjects

Main Point: Daily desktop videoconferencing between two kindergarten classes resulted in greater weather understanding for students, as well as greater understanding on time, distance, and understanding other children.

Method: A description of a project, not a research study.

Desktop videoconferencing was used to connect two kindergarten classes, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Illinois. The classes reported local weather to each other daily for a six week period. They would share the weather and then visit for a while. Sometimes they asked questions of the other class for their daily graph. Each daily VC was 10-20 minutes long, in a three hour half day kindergarten.

Other Internet activities were: the “meteorologist” classroom job included checking out a weather cam of personal choice, visiting a local TV station to learn about weather reporting, and practiced weather reporting within the classroom. I linked the site they used, which still exists, but most of the links are broken.

Findings:
The author felt that the learning that came from the questions and understanding the other children was worth the time committed to the daily videoconference. The project focusing on weather grew to be an interdisciplinary project in several curriculum areas.

It’s interesting that the last two studies I’ve read are from university laboratory schools. I wonder if there is a difference between students in university lab schools and “regular kids”.

The planning started with a common long term curriculum within the classroom: weather reporting. It’s important to start with existing curriculum.

Author/Audience: The author was from a university, and was presenting this paper to an educational technology audience. The lessons were used as a demonstration for preservice teachers as well.

Relevance: This is K-12 project that fits my definition of curriculum videoconferencing. Right on target.

Cifuentes, L., & Murphy, K. (1999). Distance learning among Mexican and Texan children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 94-102.

Authors: Lauren Cifuentes and Karen L. Murphy
Title of article: Distance learning among Mexican and Texan children
Publication year: 1999
Database source: Wilson Select Plus. Also available through SpringerLink.
Name of journal: Educational Technology Research and Development
My Codes: VCProjects

Main Point: While students may not understand a distant culture or distant students, with well designed collaborative videoconference activities over a sustained amount of time, shared understanding can be gained.

Background:
The authors reference Moffett (1994) to emphasize that students need to develop relationships with people from diverse backgrounds in order to become more tolerant and respectful citizens. They reference Cummins & Sayers (1995) to suggest that collaborative learning has the potential to transform students’ perspective “from parochial to global.” A peek at the description of Cummins & Sayers’ book on Amazon.com sounds very intriguing. I wonder if their vision from 1995 holds up in 2007 with the advent of H.323 videoconferencing and Web 2.0.

Methods:
This was a qualitative study that used content analysis and observations.

Two classes in Mexico City connected with two classes in College Station, Texas over a whole school year. Now that’s an extended collaborative project! Interestingly, the “activities were designed in response to Postman’s (1995) narratives that learners should share in order to achieve the diesred ends of education” including “stewardship of Earth, religion, democracy, diversity, and language.”PDF p. 2. The classes met mostly with videoconferencing, but occasionally via email. The student collaborative experiences were designed for “social construction of meaning (PDF p. 2).

First the two classes received two hour writing workshops, and students learned about poetry written about other places. Then the students wrote an “I am” poem describing what it might be like to live in the other country (Mexican students about the US; US students about Mexico).

Data collected included the poems, the lesson plans, and researcher observations and questioning during the lessons. Content analysis was conducted on the students’ poems.

Findings:
PDF p. 6 Research question 1: “What impressions did the students have of each other?”

The Mexican students had moderate-to-high levels of knowledge about the United States, and their images were mostly positive. The Texan students were “unable to paint a vivid picture of Mexico”. Only a little over half of of the poems were completely positive. The Texan students used only four of the six likely sources of information that the Mexican students used. Most of the Mexican students “had enough experience with U.S. culture to accurately portray it in poetry”, but the Texan students had little firsthand knowledge, so they wrote “about their own culture, created an imaginary place, or referred to stereotypes.” p. 6. The authors suggest that this discrepancy indicates a need for teacher Texan children about their neighbors.

p. 6 Research question 2: “What activities brought children of Mexican and Texan cultures together successfully to learn with, about, and from each other?”

The students wrote the poem, as well as a story about the day in the life of a fourth grader in the other country so that they could see how much they had to learn throughout the year. They also created documents about themselves and exchanged these via a messenger who traveled back and forth for unrelated business.

The book I Felt Like I Was From Another Planet was used to think of ideas. They compared table manners across cultures.

They met two times to meet each other, a third time to learn about the interpretive nature of history focused on the Alamo, a fourth time to read diaries, reenactments and share comparative essays about the Alamo, a fifth to share folk tales and folk songs, and finally to share murals of their hometowns. Writing activities were included for each of these videoconferences. Each videoconference also had “a flood of questioning” as they learned how they were similar and different. This study is an excellent example of a collaborative project design and the quality learning experiences that accompanied each videoconference.

p. 8. The differences among the students may be in part related to their socio-economic status. The Mexican students attended an exclusive private school, whereas the Texan students attended public school. The Mexican students had many opportunities for travel, while the Texas students had not.

Author/Audience: At the time of writing, the authors were both college instructors of educational technology. The article is written for those interested in distance education and educational technology.

Questions/Thoughts:

p. 2. The authors used Laughon’s (199 four phases of online telecommunications projects: planning, advertising & registration, coordinating/moderating, and evaluation. I do think that we need to learn the lessons from Internet and email based projects as we develop and implement our videoconferencing projects.
Full reference: Laughon, S. (1998). Designing effective telecommunications projects. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Wired together: The online classroom in K-12, Vol. I: Perspectives and instructional design, (pp. 175-183). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. This may warrant further instruction. Is anyone publishing these kinds of books now? Or did internet projects go away with the onset of Web 2.0?

PDF p. 4. “All videoconferences involved preconferencing, conferencing, and post conferencing activities for the students.” See a pattern emerging? Preparation is key! Even though the study doesn’t focus on that, several of these so far include a strong preparation component to the videoconference.

PDF p. 4 “Understanding the strong Mexican accent via videoconference technology required great concentration on the part of the Texan fourth-graders.” Have you noticed this with international VCs? Sometimes it’s very hard for the students to understand each other. We need to remember that when planning activities.

p. 5 The classes learned about their ancestries to find how many of them had parents born in other countries. They shared a self-collage in the first videoconference where they met each other. They said, “They are the same as us!” Sound familiar?

The authors created a model called “Cultural Connections.” It may be worth spending more time on this model and integrating it into my work.

The authors really didn’t focus on the effects of the technology or even describe what type of videoconferencing was used. The focus was on what they learned and how their perceptions changed throughout the year. Nevertheless, the experiences documented are a great model for videoconference collaborative projects, especially the international ones.

Hayden, K. L. (1999). Videoconferencing in K-12 education: A Delphi study of characteristics and critical strategies to support constructivist learning experiences. Unpublished Ed.D., Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.

Author: Katherine L. Hayden
Title of dissertation: Videoconferencing in K-12 education: A Delphi study of characteristics and critical strategies to support constructivist learning experiences.
Publication year: 1999
Database source: Dissertation Abstracts and it used to be partially published online. Access it from the web archive.
My Codes: VCContentProviders, VCProjects, VCCourseDelivery, VCImplementation, VCExperts

Main Point: The dissertation identified characteristics of videoconference sessions that support constructivist learning experiences. It also focused on critical support strategies necessary for successful K12 videoconferencing. These characteristics were identified by interviewing a panel of experts.

Methods:
A Delphi study was used to identify characteristics of constructivist learning in videoconferencing.

The participants were from three areas: teachers with prior use of technology in K12 classrooms (stakeholders), experienced users of videoconferencing (experts), and educational consultant or visionaries (facilitator). (p. 73). A purposive sample was used.

They communicated via email and web-based questionnaires in three rounds of surveys, each building on the previous one. In the rounds, the participants identified characteristics and then rated them. The process was conducted over a four month period.

They were not required to have knowledge in constructivism, but were given a list of terms and experiences to work from: themes from the literature on constructivism (p. 65):

• student-centered activities
• active participation by students
• deep understanding of concepts
• access to primary sources of data
• performance-based assessment
• group situations / collaborative work
• teacher as facilitator

The responses were analyzed using the content analysis method.

Hayden also checked several variables to see if there was a difference between the participants and their responses (age, gender, experience, etc.) One area that was significant was prior experience with videoconferencing, (p. 99). “The group that indicated prior experience using videoconferencing in K-12 education had higher constructivist point totals indicating higher perceptions of constructivist methodology statements.” This is really intriguing considering the Sweeney research results. It does seem this constructivist theme is emerging. Is it because I’m only reading the most interesting studies first and I’m definitely a constructivist? Is that why I enjoy VC so much?

Definitions:  The definition of videoconferencing as two way seeing and hearing came from the PacBell site (now AT&T). So it appears that definitions in my dissertation could possibly come from sources such as a blog entry defining projects and collaborations.

Both room based and desktop based videoconferencing were included in the study.

Findings:
The results identified 20 characteristics of videoconferencing that support constructivist learning. They are online at the web archive. They fit into four themes: connections, questioning, learning, and interaction. p. 136 The researcher found it interesting that the traditional “talking head” of videoconferencing did not emerge in the study.
The results also identified 10 support strategies, that are online at the web archive too. They are organized into six categories: people (a  site technician or coordinator!!, access, hardware and software, materials, staff development, and cost. The researcher suggested that one person could play several support roles: Technician, leadership and management. p. 139

Lit Review: This lit review is organized more closely to how I want to organize mine.

In the lit review, Hayden reviews the history of educational technology and how it often made little long term impact on the classroom.  p. 15 Teachers who used radio, film or instructional television used it “occasionally as a replacement for direct instruction.” p. 15. The reference is to Tyack and Cuban. Hmmm. Does that sound like the use of content providers to you? An occasion replacement for regular insturction?! Interesting, isn’t it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Do the lessons learned in college course delivery studies apply to K12 curriculum videoconferencing?

p. 47 Hayden describes how schools have used Internet projects in the classroom, and that they aren’t in the research literature, but there are several educational technology journal articles referencing them. This may be the way to describe how VC is used, even tho’ there is little research specifically on K12  curriculum videoconferencing type applications. It may also be useful to look at the types of projects she references to see how they correspond with the types of VC projects we’re doing. I know a lot of the ideas in my Projects Booklet are from internet based projects and Webquests.

p. 48 Hayden also gives an overview of how CUSeeMe was used in classrooms with Global SchoolNet. Research seems applicable to H323 videoconferencing as well. Certainly we can learn from their lessons. GSF projects have some key elements: interactivity with experts & peers, authentic projects with student-centered learning, online assistance with curriculum and finding partners. Read Around the Planet helps with finding partners, and other tools also do this. It’s a critical piece to collaborative projects.

p. 51. The lit review covers the resources available to help teachers in using videoconferencing, limited to basically the PacBell and Global SchoolNet sites. Remember this was in 1999. If I include a section like this, there are a lot more resources to refer to! Note also that there is a reason Lora Smith received the recent CILC National Distance Learning Awards. This site has been the starter/foundation for many of us as we got started with videoconferencing.

Great Quotes:
‘If a picture is worth a thousand words, then videoconferencing is worth tens of thousands of words. “  Newcombe 1997, but the source document is no longer online.

Background/Why It’s Important
p. 1-2 Hayden begins that background of the problem by arguing that business is using electronic communication tools and finds that they are a valuable tool for today’s work. (references from 1996 and 1997). Therefore the schools cannot ignore what is happening in the world. These arguments are similar to those I made when writing our RUS Grant. I’m sure there are more recent references that can be used to make this same argument.

p. 3-4 Hayden argues for the benefits of VC in education, including global resources, visuals, the personal touch, real-world learning, and educators visions of learning in the future.

Why we need VC coordinators in the school
p. 5 referenced Zhao - teachers need support to adopt new technologies otherwise there won’t be a widespread impact on education.

p. 15 Nonuse or infrequent use of early technologies was due to various problems, including access to training and resources. Another Cuban reference.

Limited support is one of the reasons teachers cite as an obstacle to using technology. (Hancock & Betts)

p. 58 “Site mentors” can provide support for professional development. Need to look into this research and how it applies to videoconference coordinators.  Hurst, Sprague, Polin (can’t find the reference).

Implementation
Cuban’s (1986) areas of concern for the implementation of technology are still critical issues today: “cost of equipment, maintenance and upgrades; access to technology, curriculum fit, training and support.” He also suggests two other areas that should be addressed: “teacher beliefs about teaching and learning and teachers being included in decision making relating to technology.”

p. 55 e-rate is referenced as a reason the cost of access to VC may be coming down. I think this is true - we couldn’t do IP based VC without good Internet connections. Of course now we want/need fiber! Will it ever end?!

Constructivism & Social Constructivism
p. 6 Many references used to make the point that technology is probably best integrated into student-centered constructivist learning environments. This theme is starting to come through loud and clear in my reading. We wonder why teachers don’t integrate videoconferencing in their curriculum or even try it. Could it be that they don’t believe that learning can happen in social constructivist environments? If that is true, then how do we teach them a new way? I think Jazz makes a few dents in this problem.

p. 23 & 24. Hayden describes how constructivism reforms are making inroads into educational practice and why they are desirable. I wonder what current research is saying about constructivism in the light of No Child Left Behind and the current testing environment? And how does that impact our emphasis on interactive videoconferencing?

Hiltz 1997 found that students who used group learning with online communication tools had higher grades. The social interaction was a key part of the educational process. Interesting, but it’s college level and it’s in a web based asynchronous environment. Do those principles apply to real time videoconferencing as well? Another study would be appropriate to find out if that is true.

p. 41 has a great chart I wish was online on the Internet so I could link to it to show you. It has videoconferencing activities, and how an instructionist teacher or a constructivist teacher would interpret it. I.e. “bring people together from remote locations” means “my students can display their work for another class” to an instructionist teacher, and “my students can collaborate with remote learners” to a constructivist teacher. Hmm. I’m thinking of the popularity of Read Around the Planet. Maybe another reason this project works so well is that it is not too far of a jump for an instructionist teacher to integrate into their learning. It’s relatively easy to put together a presentation to share with another class. The Q&A section is the start of interactive social constructivist experiences - something simple and easy to do.

“New technologies foster the kind of active, collaborative learning that constructivist advocate.” Collins p. 64. This is certainly true for videoconferencing, and especially Web 2.0 plus videoconferencing (see this example and this example).

Training/Professional Development
p. 57 The one day workshop focusing on how to use a skill or program vs. how to use it in the classroom is rarely effective.

p. 58 In technology PD, “the most important staff-development features include opportunities to explore, reflect, collaborate with peers, work on authentic learning tasks, and engage in hands-on, activte learning.” Sandholtz 1997 p. 142. Sure sounds like Jazz to me. These quotes correspond to my variable of what type of training the school VC coordinator received.

Relevance:  This study focuses on K12 education, unlike many that focus on higher ed course delivery. It also supports the constructivist learning that is critical in successful content provider programs and collaborative projects.

Kinginger, C. (1999). Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 468-489.

Also published as: Kinginger, C. (1998). Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 502-513.

Author: Celeste Kinginger
Title of Article: Videoconferencing as access to spoken French
Publication year: 1999
Database source: JSTOR
Name of journal: Canadian Modern Language Review
My Codes: VCProjects

Main Point: This study is of a classroom interaction between language learners in the U.S. and France via a videoconference. The language used in the videoconference was mostly beyond the learners’ ability, taking them outsite the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). By watching a tape of the interaction, the students were able to learn more and return to their ZPD. This is a really interesting lesson. I can think of a couple international language interactions we’ve had that have been full of laughter and nervousness as described in this article. Taping the interaction is a great idea of a way to increase the benefit from the time spent with the native speakers. Of course permission should be acquired before taping kids!

It’s interesting that there is a mismatch between the instruction of written language - students are taught to speak the written “correct” language - and the actual spoken language in the country. This would partially explain why the interaction was so difficult for the students. Something to consider when planning an interaction based on language! The article set up this problem with a discussion of the issues and problems with teaching written “purified” French and spoken French in it’s many forms.

Author/Audience: The author is writing for instructors of French, so some of the article is in French.

Theoretical Framework: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Definitions …”site-independent learning can also be understood as two-way interaction across distance, for mutual benefit. In this model, telecommunications technology is a tool for providing access to members of a speech community whose language is the object of study.” p.1 in the PDF (doesn’t match the journal page numbers). Site independent learning is used as a term to explain the use of videoconferencing for a collaborative project / learning experience.

Methods:
This qualitative study examined selected interactions in a videoconference.

The actual learning experiences in this article are much better described than the Shaklee study. Students reviewed Hollywood remakes of French films, children’s literature, and television series. Both classes made web pages to publish their work. The students were assigned an email partner. The videoconferences consisted of two 60 minute sessions. The two teachers had worked collaboratively extensively for two years before the actual collaboration. Some interesting lessons here: notice the extensive “wrap around” experiences that accompany the videoconference. The use of asynchronous communication (email) extends the videoconference and helps work around the time zones. Notice also how this project started - they knew each other already!

Subjects: It’s not totally clear on the age/level of the students, but I believe both classes were university level - the American students were in the 5th semester or above at a regional state university, and the French students had “completed their Baccalauréat” (PDF p. 4).
The videoconference was over ISD lines at 256K and cost $332 for an hour. It sounds like they also had an echo to deal with as well as the delay. The instructors already knew that “pause length is a significant factor in the success or failure of intercultural communication.” PDF p. 4 with reference to Scollon. Interesting that this is an issue already with face to face intercultural communication. It’s exaggerated then in videoconferencing. We all have experienced how that pause after a question is so critical. Wait time! To work around this, they planned a structured interaction with prepared questions.

This study looks at the second of the two videoconferences, and only the French portion. The other half was in English because the French class was learning English. I think this model is critical for native speaker language exchanges. There has to be a give and take so that both classes get to try out the language they are learning.

The American students had prepared their questions and read them off of note cards. They had 11 questions in 30 minutes. The students already knew each other because of their email partners. So in some of the Q&A interactions, the students were paired one on one for the interaction while the others watched. This is an interesting way to organize it too. It would alleviate some of the confusion that comes when a language learner asks a question of a class of native speakers and they all answer at once, making it hard for the language learner to understand the answer.

The actual transcript of the interaction is included, and in the second one, one can see that the language learner was really struggling. The author suggests that this was due to the anxiety and stressful situation, and they may not have had enough experience with spoken French. As I’m reading this, I’m wondering if any of this happens with French classes that participate in the art museum programs offered in French.

After the class, the students watched the tape. And the student who was asked more questions in French and struggled to answer, took the tape home and emailed the other student four times in debriefing the interaction. This is another great way to help students get past the frustration of the real-time pressure of the spoken language and still learn from the experience.

The author suggests (PDF p. 9) that another reason the students struggled so much was that they “live in what may be termed an ‘acquisition poor’ environment for acquiring competence in spoken French.” Most of the students didn’t have access to native speakers. This highlights another reason to use videoconferencing to access native speakers (as hard as that is to do!). However it seems clear that the instructors involved should at least read this article to assist in the planning of the videoconference.

p. 10 “It may be legitimate to suggest that the videoconference took place in a language to which the learners had ever before been exposed, of the existence of which they had been mainly unaware.” This is a serious situation; one to be considered before planning an interaction with native speakers.

While the American French students were able to participate minimally during the videoconference, they now had a tape of the interaction. They watched them again and again in class until everyone understood the features of spoken French used in the interaction.

While the students had trouble, they all appreciated the experience. They reported learning so much from it, and wished it could have happened more often in their class. Now that we have IP connections, the cost of this type of interaction is gone. There is still the difficulty of finding a partner class and negotiating the time schedules.

Findings/Conclusions:
Three problems were illustrated in this project: the language classroom anxiety induced by the stress of the videoconferencing, the unclear status of spoken language in American French instruction, and the need to make a place for language awareness in the curriculum.

The spoken language is especially a problem with French.

Telecommunications will force the profession to address the issues of spoken French.

Instructors should consider the students’ ZPD when planning a similar videoconference.

Instruction in languages may need to include a more rich explanation of foreign languages, accounting for “social and situational variation.” (PDF p. 11).

Cross References:
The Becta lit review says: Videoconferencing “provides enhanced opportunities for language students to interact
with native speakers” (Kinginger 1998). p. 2

The Alberta lit review says: videoconferencing “has been expensive - the cost of videoconferencing over telephone lines is equivalent to the cost of six long distance calls (per site) for the duration of the event.” p. 5

Thoughts
There are some important lessons in this study on preparation and planning for a videoconference. The value of the recorded interaction is emphasized. The study also shows how to make the best of a videoconference that doesn’t quite turn out the way you might have thought it would.