Study Results: K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale

This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.

Remember as you review the results of my study that every variable was examined to see its relationship with how often the school was using curriculum videoconferencing and whether that variable could be used to predict the use of videoconferencing.

A major part of my study was the development of a scale for coordinators with questions related to their skill in coordinating VC and the staff attitudes about videoconferencing. For those interested in the details, the K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale has good reliability and validity estimates. Cronbach’s alpha was .815, which means the scale can be used to predict a school’s use of videoconferencing based on an individual coordinator’s score. For full details, see p.55-59.

The K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale has six subscales:

  • The quality of the videoconference (audio and video)
  • The coordinator’s ability to support videoconferencing
  • The coordinator’s ability to integrate VC in the curriculum
  • The coordinator’s ability to work with teachers
  • The coordinator’s perception of the teachers’ attitudes towards videoconferencing
  • The coordinator’s perception of the principal’s support of videoconferencing

To see the full scale, see Appendix A, and questions 27 through 51.

In this post, we’ll look at the relationship between subscales and the school’s use of curriculum videoconferencing.

Quality of the Videoconference

  • The quality of the videoconference was not significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC. However, when it was included in  multiple regression analysis with all the subscales (which hold all the other variables constant), the quality of the videoconference contributed negatively (b=-12.34, p=.002) to the prediction of the use of VC.

Coordinator’s Ability to Support VC

  • The coordinator’s ability to support VC was not significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC.
  • However, it was significantly correlated to the coordinator’s ability to work with teachers (r=.471), the teachers’ attitudes (r=.238), and the principal’s support of VC (r=.177). And these in turn were correlated with the school’s use of VC.

Coordinator’s Ability to Integrate VC in the Curriculum

  • The coordinator’s ability to integrate VC in the curriculum was not significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC.
  • However, it was significantly correlated to the coordinator’s ability to work with teachers (r=.688), the teachers’ attitudes (r=.296), and the principal’s support of VC (r=.176).

Coordinator’s Ability to Work with Teachers

  • The coordinator’s ability to work with the teachers was  positively correlated with the school’s use of videoconferencing (r=.139, p=.021).

Coordinator’s Perception of Teacher Attitudes

  • The coordinator’s perception of the teachers’ attitudes towards videoconferencing was  positively correlated with the school’s use of videoconferencing (r=.405, p=.000).

Coordinator’s Perception of Principal Support

  • The coordinator’s perception of the principal’s support of videoconferencing was  positively correlated with the school’s use of videoconferencing (r=.320, p=.000).

Recommendations/Discussion

  • Why do you think some schools with better quality of videoconferencing are using it less than some schools that have more pixelation and breakup in their videoconference? This was one of the surprising findings of my study. Have you noticed that? I have some schools that have awful quality and yet their need is so great (very rural; not very many opportunities) and they love VC!
  • Isn’t it interesting that the coordinator’s ability alone isn’t enough to get the school to use VC often? The teachers make a big difference! But… good VC coordinators find ways to encourage teachers to use VC. What are your most effective strategies to improve teachers’ view of using VC in the curriculum?
  • Seeing that the principal support is so important to the successful implementation of VC, how do you gain that principal support? What strategies do you recommend?

0 replies on “Study Results: K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale”

  1. First reactions to this…

    Quality of VC: Seriously don’t understand this one. I will say that I can tolerate a bit of pixelation if the audio is good. I actually have a school where if there is the *slightest* pause in the video, they will not do any videoconferencing. They still have yet to connect for anything…student project OR staff development.

    Coordinator’s Ability to Support VC: This doesn’t make sense to me. Are you saying that the coordinators ability to support vc is correlated to the their ability to work with teachers? Does this translate into “The coordinator really doesn’t know how to support vc, knows a little bit about it, has a good relationship with the teachers and some way they figure out how to make the connections work”?

    Coordinator’s Ability to Work with Teachers: Spot on! Our highest use buildings have funny, organized, nurturing people as the coordinators.

    Perception of Teacher Attitudes: So if the coordinator thought the teachers didn’t want to use vc, the school did not vc as much?

    Perception of Principal Support: Same as above, right? If the coordinator *thought* the principal supported vc, they used it more?

    I think the most effective way to improve teachers’ view of using VC in the curriculum is much like any other technology. Ask the teachers what they have to teach. Listen as they describe how they currently teach it. Then provide one or two things they could do. Don’t overwhelm them with too much choice. Think zero-entry pool. Wade in slowly. Once they are in and have a positive experience, they will be back. 🙂

    Roxanne

  2. Janine Lim says:

    Thanks for the comments, Roxanne!

    1. Quality of VC. I think that result is because among the people that responded to the survey, there are a lot of schools who have “some” pixelation and break up who use VC comparatively often. And there are enough schools who have “no” pixelation and break up who aren’t using it as often as the schools with some break up in the quality. Why the schools with better pictures aren’t using VC as much isn’t explained by this study. I think it could be because in some states, much funding has gone into the statewide fiber network, and not as much into supporting curriculum videoconferencing. It could be also that these states represented in the study are using VC much more often for full length courses and have not yet realized the 2nd and 3rd waves of VC (content providers and collaborations in the Wainhouse Research definition). Do you think that is a plausible explanation?

    2. Coordinator’s Ability. I think it’s more like this. The coordinator may have very high ability to support VC, but if the teachers and principal aren’t supporting it, it doesn’t translate to higher use of VC. The ability to coordinate VC included their comfort with tech, their comfort with VC, their ability to use the VC equipment, their ability to schedule, do their own test calls, make the connection work, and explain VC to the students. It could also be that the higher levels on these scales aren’t necessary for a coordinator to have if they have support from an ESA, for example. Like most of my coordinators don’t do their own test calls and connections, yet their schools use VC a lot. Further research would tease this out better than this first run of my survey… What do you think?

    3. On the perceptions, yes… the questions are on page 142 if you want the full thing – but were things like: “My principal sees the value of VC programs and strongly recommends that teachers participate in VCs.” etc.

    I fully agree – teachers need some serious hand-holding in the beginning! Thanks for your comments that help clarify!!

Leave a Reply