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.
In this post, we’ll look at the relationship between the school’s use of curriculum videoconferencing and some administrative support variables.
Hours Spent Supporting VC at Work
- The hours the coordinator spent supporting VC at work was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing. However, when using all the administrative reports in a multiple regression analysis to determine which variables predict use of videoconferencing, this variable contributed negatively to the regression model (b=-3.400, p=.050). This could be because full time VC coordinators are spread too thin supporting multiple units.
Hours Spent Supporting VC at Home
- The hours the coordinator spent supporting VC at home was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Amount School Spent on Programming
- The amount of funds that the school spent on programming was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Grant Funds for Programming (yes/no)
- Whether or not the school had grant funds for programming was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Grant Amount Spent on Programming
- The amount of grant funds that the school spent on programming was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Recommendations / Discussion
- Aren’t these results interesting? I think they are one of the more interesting results of my study. Why is the amount spent on videoconferencing not significant? Is it because some schools receive so much free programming (either from their ESA or from collaborative projects or both)? What does this say about the future and sustainability of content providers? What do you think?!
- As much as videoconference coordinators want more time to support videoconferencing, this isn’t significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC. Why do you think that is? What else do you think is more important in predicting the use of VC in schools?
Janine, as I read through this, I don’t understand it. Are these from the building coordinators? These aren’t from ESA support, right?
Would it be accurate to say then that the PERSON who supports it in the building is more important than the amount of TIME they have to support it?
I do know that in some of my schools that used it alot when the coordinator changed and the new coordinator was not as much of a champion or did not have the same relationship with the teacher, the usage went down. I don’t really know why, it is just me supposing that is what happened.
Other things that could have changed in the same time are curriculum requirements, administration, and even local procedures. I have one district that implemented a procedure where they have to have an internal P.O (purchase order) processed for every videoconference event whether it is free or paid. That decreased usage a bit.
I think that yes, the person who supports VC is more important that how much time they have to support VC. I think that in some cases, the teachers are so gung-ho and trained to sign up for VCs that it doesn’t take a lot of time on the coordinator’s part, and yet the school is still using VC a lot. In other cases maybe the coordinator spends a lot of time, but still has a hard time convincing the teachers to use it. So in addition to the coordinator being important, the teachers attitudes and skill in using VC are also important predictors of how often the school is using VC.
Is it the hours part that doesn’t make sense?
Thanks for the comment!!