Tag Archives: Research Articles

Lit Review: The Virtual Scientist: Connecting University Scientists to the K-12 Classroom through Videoconferencing

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: Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Learning: Evaluating the Seatrek Distance Learning Project.

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: Site facilitator roles in videoconferencing: Implications for training

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.

Lit Review: Promoting multicultural understanding and positive self-concept through a distance learning community: cultural connections

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.

Lit Review: Lights, Camera, Action: Videoconferencing in Kindergarten

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.

Lit Review: Distance learning among Mexican and Texan children.

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 (1998) 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.

Lit Review: Characteristics and Critical Strategies to Support Constructivist Learning Experiences

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

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 Kathleen Hayden’s website.
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.

Lit Review: Videoconferencing as access to spoken French.

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.

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.

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.