Tag Archives: LitReview

Lit Review: The Use of Videoconferencing as a Medium for Collaboration of Experiences and Dialogue Among Graduate Students

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

Berson, M. J., Carano, K., Carlson, L. A., Mixon, N. K., Rodriguez, P., Sheffield, C. C., et al. (2006). The use of videoconferencing as a medium for collaboration of experiences and dialogue among graduate students: A case study from two southeastern universities. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006, 262-267.  Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/

My Codes: VCProjects

Main Point: The authors are part of a collaboration between the teacher education programs at two universities connecting via Internet2. The article describes the semester long team-teaching course, advantages and disadvantages of the team-teaching videoconference format, and discusses some of the content covered during the joint sessions. The class used blogging as an asynchronous method to connect the classes and allow for additional reflective thinking.

Theoretical Framework/References:
The article references Vygotsky to show the importance of “cultural exchange, social interaction, and peer collaboration” for the learning process.

Methods, Sample, Variables/Case:
This article is a conference paper so it doesn’t have a clear description of method. The study is called a case study (p. 2), but methods of data collection and analysis are not described.

It seems mostly a discussion format was used for the videoconferences, and the two professors team-facilitated the discussions.

The participants learned from each other’s different perspectives. One class was comprised of mainly graduate students who were already teaching; while the other class had mainly graduate students who had not yet taught or were not teaching at the same time as taking the class. These different perspectives added to the quality of the discussion and learning from both sides.

The students were able to gain the advantage of having two professors without putting a strain on either university’s resources.

The double class size due to the videoconference afforded a wider perspective and more interesting discussions.

There were some challenges including some audio problems, one night one site had a blue screen the whole time (even universities have firewall problems!) A few times one university would “take over” the conversation and they had to adjust procedures to make sure the conversation was well rounded from both sides. Some mic issues included hearing side conversations and fidgeting noises, so muting the microphone was used to resolve that.

The authors are university education professors and they were presenting to an educational technology conference of K-20 educators.


We can’t say that higher education isn’t trying to expose teacher education students to technology, that’s for sure. You may have your doubts about the university close to you, but there are definitely professors trying to expose pre-service teachers to current educational technologies. Yeah for them!!

I wonder if they experimented with any specific pedagogical techniques to make the instruction and discussion varied and interesting between the sites. I’m thinking of strategies by Carol Fleck and Kim Perry who presented at the Keystone Conference in 2004.

This is a great example of collaboration at the university level, and a model for team-teaching as a specific type of collaborative videoconferences.

Lit Review: World's youth connect through Global Nomads Group: An interview with GNG's David Macquart

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

Morrison, J., & Macquart, D. (2006). World’s youth connect through Global Nomads Group: An interview with GNG’s David Macquart. Innovate, 2(4).

Author: Morrison, J and Macquart, D
Title of article: World’s youth connect through Global Nomads Group: An interview with GNG’s David Macquart
Publication year: 2006
Database source: Innovate
Name of journal: Innovate
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: This article is an interview between Innovate’s editor and one of Global Nomads Group (GNG)’s founders. The article shares the history of GNG, it’s impact, features some of the programs, and shares the challenges.

Theoretical Framework/References: Not applicable, not a research study. The one reference is used to show that Americans lack in cultural understanding.

Methods, Sample, Variables/Case:  Not applicable, not a research study.

Findings: Not applicable, not a research study.

Author/Audience: The audience is the Innovate readership.

The article shows how the vision of a few to meet the needs of students can expand to a respected non-profit organization.

GNG has offered some incredible international programs, but they are often only offered that one year. This makes it hard to “institutionalize” the learning. GNG wishes to offer more programs more consistently, but is hampered by funding issues. Nevertheless, many of our students have benefited from the incredible learning experiences offered by GNG.

“Most of the issues addressed in our programs continue to challenge governments and international institutions….” GNG certainly doesn’t skirt around tough issues. They have the facilitation expertise to deal with tough issues too. I’ve experienced their facilitation skills both in training and with students

This article provides anecdotal evidence of the power of videoconferencing to bring experiences and interactions to students that would be impossible otherwise.

Lit Review: A Content Analysis of Videoconference Integration Plans

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

Newman, D. L., Du, Y., Bose, M., & Bidjerano, T. (2006). A Content Analysis of Videoconference Integration Plans. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Orlando, FL.

Authors: Newman, Dianna L.; Du, Ying; Bose, Mohua; Bidjerano, Temi
Title of paper: A Content Analysis of Videoconference Integration Plans
Publication year: 2006
Database source: EdITLib
Name of journal: N/A
My Codes: VCContentProviders

Main Point: This study analyzed 46 lesson plans by teachers developed around content providers’ programs. These were part of the ProjectView grant that ended in 2005. The integration lesson plans are online here.

Theoretical Framework/References:
Several references are used to make the case that museusm already have educational content for schools, videoconferencing provides access to those resources, students participating in a videoconference engage in higher order thinking skills, and videoconferences enrich curriculum with an “active learning environment” and by “facilitating inquiry-based learning”. (p. 2). Two noteworthy references I hadn’t found already were Newman et. al 2004 and Silverman & Silverman 1999.

Methods, Sample, Variables/Case:
Content analysis was conducted on 46 lesson plans from New York State. The lesson plans were created by 63 teachers and educational consultants from 25 school districts. The lessons featured 26 content providers. A coding sheet was used to analyze the lessons. It’s included in the paper and has checkboxes for the various types of learning experiences and resources included in the lessons.

The majority of the lesson emphasis (time) was on pre-conference preparation.

The most popular methods of instruction were the structured discussion/socratic method (65%). Next were lecture/direct instruction (46%), teacher demonstration (44%), and constructivism (43%). p. 4

Traditional modes of learning were used more leading up to the conference, and the student-centered constructive learning was used more after the videoconference.

The lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were used more in the pre-conference activities, and the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were used more in the post-conference activities.

Rubrics, projects, and worksheets were the most popular assessment techniques used by the teachers.

Author/Audience: The authors are connected with the NYIT EEZ, which is a strong content provider support program in New York. The audience was the conference attendees, so people interested in educational technology and teacher education.


Quotes: “The videoconference session may be considered as a catalyst for promoting higher levels of thinking during post videoconference sessions.” p. 5.

The videoconferences were used to “extend” and “enrich” the study. p. 5 But before you protest about those words, check this: students would be “exposed to richer alternative sources of information, real artifacts and animals, meet external experts, and get their questions answered.” And videoconferencing leads to “a more dynamic and interactive form of learning” p. 5.

This article emphasizes the importance of preparation for videoconferences, as well as essential component of wrap-around lessons to accompany videoconferences. Using a videoconference as a stand-alone “fun” activity is not appropriate! I really like the Project VIEW focus on teachers creating lessons to support their experiences with content providers. 

Note to self: This is a great article for the week on preparing students in my online class, Planning Interactive Curriculum Connections.

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:

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.


  • 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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

Main Point: This article is an external evaluation of Mote Marine Laboratory’s SeaTrek program.

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.

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.

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.


Cross References:


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.


  • 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.


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.

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.