Monthly Archives: December 2007

Lit Review: Elementary children's epistemological beliefs and understandings of science in the context of computer-mediated video conferencing with scientists.

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 Unpublished Ph.D., University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.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.

Where should you install new VC equipment?

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? 

Lit Review: A Study Of The Factors That Impact Videoconferencing As A Learning Tool Within Three Regional Service Agencies In Michigan

Currie, N. (2007). A Study Of The Factors That Impact Videoconferencing As A Learning Tool Within Three Regional Service Agencies In Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oakland University, Rochester, MI.

Author: Neil Currie
Title of dissertation: A Study Of The Factors That Impact Videoconferencing As A Learning Tool Within Three Regional Service Agencies In Michigan
Publication year: 2007
Database source: Not yet in dissertation abstracts. Received chapters four (results) and five (conclusions) via email from the author.
Name of journal: n/a
My Codes: VCImplementation

Main point of the dissertation: This dissertation examined the factors that impact the success of videoconferencing from both the ISD (regional service agency) level, and the school district level, comparing among the three and between the ISD and school district perceptions.

Methods: Mixed methods including a survey and in-depth interviews. Surveys were given to videoconference staff at the educational service agency as well as the superintendents and/or technology directors in the local schools serviced by those agencies.

Research questions examined what affects the success of a regional delivery network: the size of the network’s geography, the socio-economic homogeneity, the key planning elements, and factors involving the availability of programming.

Findings:
The three ISDs were analyzed separately. Participants rated their perception of the use of VC in their school district as “rarely” “couple times per month” “couple times per week” “used almost daily.” They also predicted whether future use would increase or decrease in the next few years.

In the two smaller ISDs (9 and 7 school systems), videoconferencing was used by 100% of the school districts. In the larger ISD (28 school systems), only 68% had used videoconferencing. In the larger ISD, none of the schools reported using it daily; whereas in the smaller ISDs they reported using it more often (67% daily in ISD B, 100% daily in ISD C).

A chi-square test of significance was used to cross tab the size of the districts in square miles with the answer to the question “Have students within your school system participated in video conferences”. The results (χ2= 18.707, df=3, p=.000) indicate a significant difference between them. It would be nice to know the effect size. However, this data did not match the survey results, so the researcher recommended that the actual practices be used as a measurement of usage; the need and purpose of VC are more logical reasons than the size of the district, and the network’s geography shouldn’t be used as a predictor in success. I do think this warrants a closer look with actual numbers usage, and a comparison of shared classes to shared classes and curriculum VCs to curriculum VCs. It needs to be done in a way that the purpose/type of VC isn’t a confounding variable.

The amount of money spent per student and the number of students participating in school lunches was used to determine the socio-economic homogeneity of the school system. This was cross tabbed with the same question as above “Have students within your school system participated in video conferences”. There was no significant difference. However in the discussion section, the researcher describes how this data was collected. It was the ISD personnel’s perception of the districts use and the district personnel’s perception of total use. It would be useful to actually compare the socio-economic status with the actual numbers of use – again divided by purpose. I don’t think it’s fair to compare shared classes to short curriculum videoconferences when looking at usage.

Issues that arose in the survey and in depth interviews on the question of key planning elements that are necessary for successful delivery included:

  • lack of a person to facilitate videoconferencing
  • lack of promotion of videoconferencing by administration
  • access to equipment
  • awareness of how to integrate it into lesson plans
  • professional development for all users
  • low picture quality
  • lack of a clear vision or purpose for using this technology
  • teachers lack of time
  • fear of the unknown

It’s interesting that in some of the ISDs, the local districts perception of training offered differs from the ISDs perception of training offered. The districts in the smaller ISDs perceived more training offered to them than the districts in the larger ISD. Hmm. How do we know we’re meeting the perceived needs from an ISD perspective? We should be careful not to make assumptions!

Another interesting finding was that in the larger ISD, the local districts felt that the elementary schools were using videoconferencing more often (42.8%) whereas the ISD personnel felt that the greatest usage was at the high school level. In one of the smaller ISDs, the ISD personnel thought that it was used more in elementary, whereas the schools thought it was used more for high school. In the other ISD, their perceptions matched, that high school was using it more. I wonder if some of this difference in perception is related to the type of videoconferencing – full course delivery at the high school level vs. short curriculum-based programs at the elementary level. The larger ISD had only 10% of the districts using course delivery, whereas the two smaller ISDs had 100% of the local districts involved in course delivery.

A finding that TWICE should think about more is that in the larger ISD, 68% of the local schools said that they did not take advantage of the services offered by TWICE. This was true in one of the smaller ISDs too. In ISD C, the districts were using the TWICE services more often. We suspect that sometimes the word doesn’t get past the ISD down to the districts level, and here we have data from two ISDs that supports this possibility. What might be a solution?

In ISD A, the districts were given videoconferencing equipment but without follow-up or infrastructure in place to ensure it’s success. In most of those schools, the equipment is sitting in the administration buildings gathering dust. This is an important lesson for grant implementations!

The ISD (C) with the highest usage of videoconferencing offered training not just on videoconferencing, but also how to use it in the curriculum and how to integrate it in the curriculum. These sessions were offered via videoconference so that the teachers could receive the training in their school building.

Another important difference with ISD C was that every school building in their service area had videoconferencing in the school. This access obviously is critical to increased use of videoconferencing.

Recommendations include: “having a codec device located in an adminstration building makes it almost impossible for individual schools to utilize this technology.” So of all the places you could put VC in your school, the administration building is the last place you should put it if you intend to use it regularly with students.

“The lack of a local person who can trouble shoot transmission problems and coordinate programming can often lead to districts giving up on using this type of technology.” How many times have I said this! If you want VC to be used, you must have someone local in the same building as the equipment to help people use it. In my experience, it doesn’t matter so much who they are, but if they are trained, supported, and enthusiastic.

77%of the 44 local districts studied, and 100% of the ISDs had videoconferencing as part of their technology plan. The researcher recommends that this “remain a necessary section of all future technology plans.”

In looking at the data on shared classes, the researcher recommended that offering distance learning classes will increase the use of VC, legitimize the technology, and make it easier for others to see how the technology works. It also seemed that starting with foreign languages and AP classes were a good place to start when offering distance learning classes.

A long list of further research is supplied and shows that we have much more work to do in this area.

Questions/thoughts I have still:

  • I want to get the full text and look at the theoretical framework and literature review providing the basis for the study.
  • I’m very intrigued with the educational service agency perspective and feel that my intended research will supplement this work.
  • This research focused on total usage, with some discussion on the difference between VC for shared classes and content providers. However, collaborations weren’t mentioned. This should be considered in future research as well.

Note: I didn’t put page numbers in my references because they aren’t the true page numbers since I only have part of the dissertation. 

Lit Review: It's a Bit Like Star Trek: The effectiveness of video conferencing

Carville, S., & Mitchell, D. R. (2001). It’s a Bit Like Star Trek: The effectiveness of video conferencing. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 42-49.

Authors: Sheelagh Carville and Denise R Mitchell
Title of article: It’s a Bit Like Star Trek: The effectiveness of video conferencing.
Publication year: 2001
Database source: InformaWorld.
Name of journal: Innovations in Education and Training International
My Codes: VCCourseDelivery

Main point of the article: To find out the effectiveness of VC as a medium to deliver a higher education degree course in early childhood to women new to higher ed and who live in a disadvantaged region.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews with the 61 students at both sites, and 5 tutors (teachers). Questionnaires were developed and given to the remote site, the host site, and the tutors.

Findings:
Participants felt that videoconferencing increased the remote sites level of access to instruction, saved money and time for the college, and provided better feedback and discussion than other distance learning methods might lack.

The novelty appears to have led tothe majority of the students having a positive attitude towards videoconferencing. However, the host site students were relieved they weren’t on the receiving end, and a few of the receiving reported headaches and finding it hard to watch the conference. (This was a 128K ISDN connection.)

Students on the receiving end reported developing different skills to learn in this mode including “listening without really watching”, “careful concentration” and “imagining that the tutor was in front of me in the room.” p. 44

Issues around sound (the receiving site had to come up to a mic to talk), time delay, and picture quality impeded the instructor’s spontaneity and made the lecture “rather stilted.” p. 45. It was difficult for the host site to include the receiving site and sometimes the receiving students felt ignored. It was tiring for the instructor to “mediate between student groups.”

At the end of the course, the receiving site students “got used to it” and were willing to connect again. However the students at the host site said, “It’s great, as long as I am not on the receiving end.” p. 45

The students suggested improvements in audio and video quality, as well as more discussion and visuals shared in the lecture.

p. 46. Interactivity is key, and the placement of microphones and time delay limits the interactivity. In most cases in 2007, these issues are not as much a problem. Do you agree? Questions and answers can work well, but students need to be confident and articulate to ask a question where all ears & eyes are on them with the microphone and camera. Those of us who have become comfortable with videoconferencing need to remember how scary/uncomfortable it is for newbies to be on camera!

p. 46 The instructors became more comfortable with videoconferencing as they engaged with it on a regular basis. They learned new techniques by watching their colleagues instruct. The also had a “willingness to be flexible and a desire to make it work.”

p. 46 Instructors couldn’t be lively and animated. Instead they had to stay fairly still, look directly into the camera, and slow down their speech. I think this is also due to the 128K connection. I’ve seen some wonderfully lively content providers presenting at 384K with great success.

p. 47 “Expectectations of technology itself also have a bearing on the participant’s tolerance of the system in use.” If they don’t have a mental model of how the process works, they are more frustrated with the experience. This is really interesting, and something we need to keep in mind as we introduce teachers to videoconferencing. If we can explain that it’s over the Internet and sometimes some of the picture doesn’t get through, etc. it helps them have a reasonable expectation of the quality. This is another reason I never “tell” about VC without actually connecting somewhere. You have to see it to understand it. I’ve also found that comparing it to digital cable works well. They’ve seen the “blocks” on the screen and understand it.

The researcher explored why the remote students were more content with the videoconference medium than the host students. The remote students had no other access to this course of study, and therefore were appreciative of the opportunity. The facilitator at the remote site also made a significant contribution to the remote students’ experience. It was successful because the students were motivated and the content was relevant and desired.

Cross References: This article was quoted in the Becta research document as follows. No mention was made of the technical challenges.

The audience for courses can be increased by teaching face to face with one group and simultaneously transmitting to a second centre elsewhere (Gilbert 1999; Carville & Mitchell 2000).

Finally, interactivity was a fairly important issue in this article, and the technology seemed to impede some of that due to mic placement and only a 128K ISDN connection. I believe that these issues are resolved in most current 384K IP connections with the newer mics designed for the whole room.

Lit Review: The use of videoconferencing techniques which support constructivism in K–12 education

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!

Supporting VCs Fall Series

Two weeks ago I finished up the last session in a new professional development series I offered to my videoconference coordinators. I wanted to offer this as another alternative for meeting the “long course” requirement for the videoconference coordinators in my RUS grant buildings. I’m requiring the videoconference coordinator to take one of my online classes PICC or K2K, or the summer weeklong Jazz class. However, for the videoconferencing coordinators who have hourly contracts, taking an online course or a summer course is very difficult. They needed a class that could be done during their working day. So was born the “Supporting Videoconferences” series of classes. Each session was offered at least twice and via videoconference. We tried to keep the number of sites to five or less to increase interaction. Here’s an overview of the sessions:

Scheduling
I used to do all the scheduling for our schools, but they are using it so much we can’t keep up anymore. When we missed out on NASA programs two times for middle schools last year because we were so slow to process our scheduling pile, I knew something had to change.

The scheduling workshop covered which programs should be scheduled through us (ISDN, mini-grants, and programs we offer) and all the details of how the whole process happens. Using our district VC calendars (hosted in a Filemaker Pro database), the coordinators can see the status of all requested programs.

Then we talked about how to schedule with content providers. My schools do their own scheduling with providers when the program is free, or when they are paying for it themselves (which is almost never!). So we walked through how to use NASA’s scheduling system with the online calendar.  We also looked at how the Cleveland Zoo’s online scheduling system works with the specific dates and special registration link for each program. We also discussed how to schedule with a content provider that prefers email or phone contact. Including all the necessary details – teacher contact info, grade level, number of students, tech contact info, tech details, billing information, all the times & dates you can do – in one email makes it a lot quicker to schedule.

Finally, we discussed scheduling projects with other schools. A few of my videoconference coordinators are now capable of finding their own partners for projects. We talked about the various ways to find partners.

Also most of my districts still have just one or two T1s coming to us and then out to the Internet, so they can only do one videoconference at a time. We use the district VC calendars to make sure we don’t schedule a program on top of another one.

Mini-Jazz Sessions
The next session in the series was a mini-jazz session. I’ve blogged about these trainings before. Basically they consist of a quick intro activity that gets everyone on camera presenting, an overview of appropriate curriculum videoconferences for that grade/subject, and some brainstorming of projects. Then the work of making them happen afterwards! This September I offered a K-2 session, middle school science and middle school social studies. The Eco-Conversations we did this month were a result of the middle school science session.

Document Cameras and Laptops
The next session was an overview of the new equipment that was delivered in September to the RUS grant buildings. They received an Avermedia QuickPlay for hooking up laptops, a Lumens Digital Visualizer document camera, and a DVD/VCR combo. We hooked everything up, practiced with all the buttons, showed best (and not-so-best) practice. Everyone also shared how they had seen others use document cameras in a videoconferencing, any scenarios they had last year when they wished they had a document camera, and any ideas they had for using it this year.

Troubleshooting
In the troubleshooting session, we started with everyone sharing horror stories. What’s the worst thing that’s gone wrong in a videoconference? Then we walked through a HELP Troubleshooting handout that I made this fall. We tried to “break” and experience as many of the problems as we could and then fix them again. We also talked about the “yellow button” on the Polycom remote that tells the stats of the call and discussed what it means to have packet loss. We practiced changing the speed of the call and dialing at different speeds. And we discussed how to deal with echos, what causes them, and some possible solutions to share with your partner school.

Sharing experiences
Most of the earlier sessions were in September and October. Then the first week in December, we finished the series with a sharing session.

  • Scheduling. Everyone shared what they had scheduled and how it went. We learned that persistence is a key skill for scheduling!
  • Scheduling. We talked about Read Around the Planet and how to prepare for registration.
  • Mini-jazz. We shared the status of ideas, and experiences from the sessions that happened.
  • Document cameras. Everyone shared how they used it. Some shared examples as well. Jane Markle, Sylvester Elementary coordinator, shared how she used the document camera’s freeze and capture options to capture the pictures from a book to read to the students in the library. Daniel Daniel, art teacher at Coloma Jr. High, shared some student artwork.
  • Troubleshooting. Everyone shared how they used their new troubleshooting skills.
  • Content providers. Everyone shared content providers they connected to this fall (or past spring), and what they liked about the program.
  • Projects. We closed with sharing collaborative projects that occurred this fall or are planned for the winter/spring. Much discussion around Monster Match, which was a huge success in October.

I shared this here so I have a record of it later! And also because it might be helpful to you as you plan training for your teachers and videoconference coordinators!

Did you hear about COSI Toledo?

I was so sad to find out that COSI Toledo was closing January 1. The WHOLE museum! I love their programs!

However I just got great news!  The North Central Ohio Educational Service Center has adopted Andy Campbell!! So all of his great programs will still be available through NCOESC starting in the new year. I’m delighted to know that Andy’s great distance learning talent won’t be wasted. I look forward to hearing that he’s up & running again in the new year.

Behind the Scenes in Mrs' Claus' Studio

07-12-20mrssanta.jpgThe last three days we’ve had 41 sessions with 1,134 students connect to Mrs. Claus to hear a story read and to ask her some questions. I thought you might like a little peek behind the scenes.

We had several elves help us make this happen. Elf Kevin suggested the book, How Santa Got His Job, and scanned the pictures into a PowerPoint so that the students could see them and Mrs. Claus could still read from the book. Elf Eunice took on the task of scheduling all the classes, creating a GoogleDocs master schedule, and collecting class lists from all of the teachers. We checked the thermometer every morning so we could tell the students precisely how cold it was. (-24 on Tuesday, -33 yesterday, and -40 today!!). Mrs. Claus selected a few Santa jokes to tell the 1st and 2nd grade students.

Mrs. Claus

Mrs. Claus asked the students in the beginning of the session if they were good and called on them by name. She read the story and asked them some prediction and comprehension questions throughout the story.

Then she took questions. We had so many fun questions. Here are a few of them:

  • When did you start dating Santa?
  • Does Santa have a big globe?
  • Do you make Christmas cookies for santa?
  • Do you like cookies and milk too?
  • Where do you keep the reindeer?
  • Is Rudolph soft?
  • Does Rudolph’s nose ever go out?

My favorite story from the sessions is from one school. A boy came up and asked, “Am I on the good list?” Mrs. Claus looked at him, and asked, “Hmm. I’m not sure. Why does your shirt say Blame My Sister? Did you do something wrong?” The whole class roared as he tried to cover up the words on his shirt!

Which collaboration site should I use?

In the last few weeks I’ve facilitated several collaborative VC projects, worked on a few, and taught a few workshops on videoconferencing projects. It’s made me think about projects and what it takes to make them happen. I’ve been thinking about how to find collaborative partners, and how those relationships evolve. Here are a few partner sites, tools, and strategies I use.

Alberta, Canada
When I want to collaborate with someone in Alberta, I use the VCAlberta social network, or email Alberta friends I’ve collected from Read Around the Planet, my online classes PICC & K2K, and the Alberta summer conferences such as Elevate 2008. I’m also learning about the possibilities with the 2Learn.ca site.

Ontario, Canada
When I want to collaborate with someone in Ontario, I use the Interactive Classroom site, or email Ontario VC friends I’ve collected from various experiences.

England, Scotland, Wales in the United Kingdom
UK connection are great collaborations. The time change is manageable for US EST, and the cultural difference is enough to make the connection really fun as well as curriculum related. There are three sites I use for UK partners: Collaborations Around the Planet, Global Leap, and Janet Collaborate.

Other international partners
For connecting to other countries, I’ve found that the Megaconference and Megaconference Jr. listservs are the best source for a potential international parter. You get on the Megaconference listserv by participating in the event.

Internet2 / International / University
If you want an Internet2 partner, international partners, or university level partners, another collaboration site to check out is the Internet2 K20 Initiative Muse site just released this fall.

Needing a partner fast
When I need a partner really quickly for a project within a few weeks, I send a note to the K12 IVC listserv. Usually I can fill a project within a couple hours. Partners responding are almost always US schools.

Needing lots of partners
For projects that I need lots of partners (like MysteryQuest), I post my request on several sites: Collaboration Collage, K12 IVC listserv, Megaconference Jr, and sometimes on the CILC Collaboration Center if I can wait for the announcement to go out on the next Monday.

Sustained Collaborations
There are also scenarios with sustained collaborations where I use “my collection” of videoconferencing friends. I have a folder in my email for all the states, provinces and countries where I know someone with VC. I also have a few good buddies like Arnie and Roxanne and others! who can help me get partners in a pinch. Some of those partnerships, especially those with Arnie & Roxanne, mean long term sustained shared collaborative projects and team facilitated events. Now that CAPspace is up and running, I’m starting to turn there when I need a phone number or email for a VC friend.

What are the strategies and tools that you use for finding collaborative partners?

International Eco-Conversations: Carbon Emissions

Last week we had five sessions over two days of our Eco-Conversations project. Dowagiac Middle School connected to five different schools to discuss carbon emissions.  Here are some notes I wrote during the sessions:

The presentation from Westcliff High School for Girls included a play on “The Weakest Link”. Five students were interviewed about how they got to school. After their carbon footprints were revealed, the student with the highest carbon footprint was pronounced “the weakest link. Goodbye!” Their students also interviewed our students as part of a school energy use survey.

The Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys is one of the only schools in their area to receive a “green flag” status for schools in their area. We learned a lot about what they are doing for the environment in their school and community. This connection we had trouble with the audio. At the end, they couldn’t hear us, but we could hear them. Some students ran quickly to get a whiteboard and they improvised. It still worked out very well. Even in the Q&A section, students were focused on the environment issues. They asked questions such as, Do you have ethanol for your cars? How far do you drive to school? Do you have all big cars in America or is that just a British myth?

Next we connected to Rosslyn Jr. High, in Edmonton Alberta. Students asked questions like, What is your local government doing to reduce carbon emissions? And, what is the cost of gas in your area?

St. Peters Church of England School. This group is working on putting a recycling plan in place in the school. As it happens, they have a group called the Global Action Plan coming to their school for a waste audit the day of the conference. Their presentation included the work they are doing on waste products and also about the waste audit. There are about 10 students in the EcoGroup school club.

When talking to the coordinators and technicians, we learned that there are over 200 schools in the UK who want to do projects like this. I think there is a big untapped market for collaborative projects in the UK. We just need to figure out how to find each other. I believe that sites like Collaborations Around the Planet, Global Leap, and Janet Collaborate are important tools for finding collaborative partners in the UK. The trick is, if at all possible, figure out the time zone difference for your desired connection ahead of time so you can ask for reasonable timed connections of your potential partners. When we emailed for partners, I listed both times, EST & UK.

One issue with this project was the preparation for the presentations. I did hear from concern about the amount of preparation work. I hear this a lot from our middle schools, and wish we could design more projects that are easier to implement for tight curriculum schedules for middle and high school students. However I did receive this reaction from the lead teacher for the project:

My students absolutely LOVED IT. You know they really liked it when they are telling other teachers and students about it!!! Talking to another country is by far the best VC out there!! When you have students like those here in Dowagiac who have maybe been as far away as Detroit or Chicago (many not that far) they are fascinated with the accents, language usage…….very cool, I would talk to another country any time it was available!

Finally, thanks to Google Alerts, I ran across this great write-up from the  Dowagiac Daily News.

A great experience for one of our RUS grant schools, showing the power of videoconferencing in rural schools.