Tag Archives: Content Providers

What is a Question?

This afternoon one of my classes did the Sea Me Read program with Mote Marine. I love this program – high energy and informative. I’ve blogged it before, so you can check that out for a full description with pictures.

08-02-28seameread.jpgWhat I noticed this time was the intentional instruction before the Q&A time. How many young students have you seen flounder when offered a chance to ask questions?! They don’t know the difference between a question and a statement. So they try to tell the presenter a story or something that they know, often off topic.

Mote Marine put this slide up before the Q&A time and accompanied it with a cheerful reminder of how to ask questions. Very cool. Something to remember for future young student programs!

Lit Review: Is it Live or is it Memorex? Students' Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication with Scientists

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

Kubasko, D., Jones, M. G., Tretter, T., & Andre, T. (2007). Is it Live or is it Memorex? Students’ Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication with Scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 495 – 514.

Authors: Kubasko, Dennis; Jones, M. Gail; Tretter, Thomas; Andre, Thomas
Title of article: Is it Live or is it Memorex? Students’ Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication with Scientists
Publication year: 2007
Database source: InformaWorld
Name of journal: International Journal of Science Education
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: The study compared students’ interaction with scientists via email and via real-time conferencing. The interactions were accompanied by real-time access to live data to remotely control an atomic force microscope (for the realtime group) and recorded experiments with the microscope (for the via email group). Both groups gained in their knowledge of viruses. Students in the asynchronous group asked more inquiry and interpretation questions than the synchronous group. All of the students were one-on-one with the scientist and NetMeeting was the synchronous method.

Theoretical Framework/References: Theoretical frameworks referenced include inquiry-based learning and hands-on science learning; as well as Vygotsky’s social constructivism. Several references are used to compare synchronous and asynchronous online learning.

Methods: The students participated in the instruction – learning about nanotechnology, then working through stations to conduct experiments and interview the scientists (twice), and finally writing a newspaper article about what they learned.

Data was collected from the students interactions. The live interactions were video taped and transcribed. The asynchronous email communications were captured for analysis. The students’ interactions with the experiment (live or replayed) were also captured for analysis.

Knowledge assessments were used before and after the activity and the newspaper articles were analyzed for content.

Sample: Eighty five biology students from four high school science classes in one school. The classes were randomly assigned to synchronous and asynchronous groups.

Findings:

  • Both groups asked the same number of questions.
  • The content of the asynchronous questions were most frequently about inquiry/interpretation.
  • The majority of the synchronous questions were informal and about the scientist, personally.
  • In both groups there was a significant shift from two-dimensional to three-dimensional understandings of the viruses.
  • Both groups understood the actual shape of the viruses better.
  • The asynchronous students wrote much longer articles for the newspaper than the synchronous group.
  • The asynchronous group made significantly more statements about what they learned or knew in their articles.

Questions/Thoughts/Implications:
The researchers’ found these results encouraging, since providing this access to students is easier and cheaper using the replayed experiments and email communication vs. live experiments and live interaction with the scientists.

The researchers called the synchronous group students’ fascination with the live interaction the “actor phenomenon”. The scientist in some cases was more interesting to the students than the experiment. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on your learning goals!

The researchers believe “future research needed to document how students can benefit most from communicating with scientists. What aspects of communication with scientists impact knowledge of science versus other variables such as attitudes, knowledge of science processes, knowledge of science careers, or images of scientists?” p. 17-18. Cross reference with McCombs’ evaluation and Shaklee’s study.

It’s really interesting how the email was more formal and thought out. There’s certainly something to be said for thinking about the questions ahead of time. See McCombs’ study.  In this study, it doesn’t appear that the live interaction students had a chance to think carefully about their questions. I wonder how this would compare, say, to the live interaction around a taped program like COSI Columbus’ In Depth Autopsy program. This article was especially interesting since my rant about asynchronous vendors knocking synchronous technologies. Asynchronous can be more thoughtful, yet synchronous has an energy and excitement to it. Which is better? What about the visuals? In this study, the visuals were the same – both groups could see the experiments. Certainly something to keep thinking about!

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: Videoconferencing exposes students to new worlds

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

WMHO. (2002). Videoconferencing exposes students to new worlds. T.H.E. (Technological Horizons in Education) Journal, 29(8).

Author: Ward Melville Heritage Organization (or THE Journal staff? it isn’t clear)
Title of article: Videoconferencing exposes students to new worlds.
Publication year: 2002
Database source: T.H.E. Journal
Name of journal: T.H.E. Journal
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: Videoconferencing allows a non-profit science organization to protect the salt marsh wetlands and still educate students about it. It allows WHMO to reach more students than would be possible with onsite visits.

Limitations:
This isn’t a research article and does not include a theoretical framework or any research data or references to other work. Well, page 3 says,”research has shown” the benefits of VC, but no references are provided. A few sentences describe teachers’ feedback from the sessions.

Notes:
The article describes how WMHO transformed an on-site field trip to a 45-60 minute engaging interactive curriculum-based program for videoconferencing. The program includes a learning kit with lesson plans, worksheets, activities, and a CD-ROM with additional resources. The article describes the visuals shown, including some innovative cameras that allow for visuals right from the water’s edge.

The article describes the reach of the programs – locally in the tri-state area and to several other states as well and mentions 12,000 students served.

Relevance:
While not a research article, this article does describe one aspect of curriculum videoconferencing – the content provider experience.

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.

How do you ensure it's "curriculum videoconferencing"?

How do you make sure videoconferencing really meets the curriculum? Do your teachers use VC “just for the fun of it?” or do you have some strategies to make sure videoconferences meet curriculum goals?

Here are a few of the ways we help our teachers do curriculum-based videoconferencing.

In addition, teachers often modify official “matching” projects like Monster Match and Read Around the Planet to meet their curriculum. This fall, a 7th grade art teacher participated in Monster Match with an art twist. The project was originally designed for K-2 classes, but the art teachers realized the value of the project for art instruction. In another match, one of our 5th teachers put a strong math twist on the project. The students had just finished MEAP testing, and every direction for their monster was given with math references. Finally, last year one of our 5th grade classes was matched with a UK school for Read Around the Planet. They were studying the revolutionary war, so they presented about that to the UK school. What an interesting discussion that was!

If teachers know their curriculum well, and have someone to help them tweak programs and projects for their curriculum, it’s very likely that the programs will meet curriculum goals and be a success.

Do you agree? What strategies do you use to ensure “curriculum videoconferencing?”

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. 

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!

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.