I’ve had a few conversations with colleagues over the summer about the use of videoconferencing in our respective areas. I’ve noticed that sometimes we judge each other’s use of videoconferencing against our own. Yet some educational service agencies focus more on course delivery or shared classes; others focus primarily on curriculum content from sources such as international and local classrooms, zoos & museums, guest speakers and authors.
Do you think that one educational service agency can effectively support multiple uses of videoconferencing: professional development, meetings, curriculum content, course delivery etc. Is it possible to do all types of VC well & to capacity?
Does it matter if one county (or region or state) uses videoconferencing primarily for one type of videoconferencing? Or should we all be trying to do all of them?
Or is what really matters the needs of the districts we serve? Some need course delivery and others don’t. Some have flexible curriculum and scheduling to access videoconference curriculum content and others have a more rigid curriculum/schedule that doesn’t allow for creative teaching with videoconferencing. What do our districts need?
What do YOU think? Is one use of videoconferencing better than another? Is your state sending a message of prioritizing a type of VC use over another? Is that a good thing? What do you think? Please comment!