Synchronous and asynchronous video conferencing tools in an online-course:! Supporting a community of inquiry!

Transcription

1 Synchronous and asynchronous video conferencing tools in an online-course:! Supporting a community of inquiry! David Wicks, Seattle Pacific University! Andrew Lumpe, Seattle Pacific University! Janiess Sallee, Valley Christian School!

2 Poll: Use of Asynchronous Tech! Do you use asynchronous communication tools in your online course?!

3 Poll: Use of Synchronous Tech! Do you use synchronous communication tools in your online course?!

4 Introduc)on What benefits/challenges does a/ synchronous video present for online instructors and students? What role (if any) should synchronous video conferencing tools play in online courses? What role can a/synchronous video play in advancing a community of inquiry? 4!

5 Asynchronous Communica)on Advantages Convenient Flexible Grants addi)onal )me for reflec)on and prepara)on of responses Provides record of ac)vity Drawbacks Text- based communica)on lacks nuances of speech and personality Delays in responses can create feelings of disjointedness or isola)on Borup, West, & Graham, 2012! Carr, 2000! De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006! Garrison, 2011! Meyer, 2004! Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004! 5!

6 Synchronous Communica)on Advantages Bridges perceived distances in space and )me Learners receive immediate feedback Audio and video help capture personality Ac)vi)es can be recorded for later review Drawbacks Lacks some flexibility in that par)cipa)on requires a specific )me commitment Doesn t always accommodate learners needing more )me to reflect before responding Not all students want to broadcast themselves Caladine, Andrews, Tynan, Smyth, & Vale, 2010, p. 250! Zhao, Lei, Yan, Lai, & Tan, 2005! 6!

7 Poll: Prep Time Online courses take less prep )me than f2f Online courses take same prep )me as f2f Online courses take more prep )me than f2f It really depends 7!

8 Poll: Facilita)on Time Online courses take less )me to facilitate than f2f Online courses take same )me to facilitate as f2f Online courses take more )me to facilitate than f2f It really depends 8!

9 Poten)al Challenges for Educators Exis)ng belief: process of preparing for and facilita)ng an online course is more )me consuming Need to rethink approach: move from teacher- centered to student- centered approach Some students maybe overwhelmed by uses of mul)ple technologies in the same course Allen & Seaman, 2013, p. 22! Caladine, Andrews, Tynan, Smyth, & Vale, 2010, pp ! 9!

10 Community of Inquiry 10!

11 Prac)cal Inquiry Model 11!

12 Methods Mixed methods study Weekly examina)on of: Google Hangout transcripts Vialogues )me- coded, threaded discussions WordPress blog posts containing student reflec)ons Par)cipants 13 grad students Taking online instruc)onal technology course 12!

13 Model for using synchronous/asynchronous video tools Google Hangout on Air Real- )me web conference Share video with YouTube PollEverywhere Audience response system Polls used to encourage discussion Vialogues Asynchronous video discussion Interact with the )me- challenged WordPress Students reflect on learning Shared publicly to encourage quality/ interac)on 13!

14 Hangouts on Air 14!

15 Using PollEverywhere in Hangouts 15!

16 Vialogues 16!

17 bpor`olio using WordPress.com 17!

18 Prac)cal Inquiry Model Find & Share Resources! Assigned readings! Hangout Participation! Vialogues Participation! Instructor Prompt in Bb! WordPress Reflection! 18!

19 Seman)c Analysis A form of text analy)cs was applied to the student posts from Hangouts, Vialogues, and Blogs All text was compiled and inserted into an Excel file The Semantria (hbps://semantria.com) program was used to apply seman)c linguis)c algorithms All text was analyzed for two components: general FACETS which represent meta- themes of the students wri)ng Community of Inquiry specific CATEGORIES represen)ng the degree that students wrote about teaching, social, and cogni5ve aspects 19!

20 Results 20!

21 Research Ques)on 1: What did the students talk and write about? Semantria Facet Analysis Analyzed each student s blog, Hangout, and Vialogues separately Students, learning, technology, and schools were the most common Facets The number of Facets in the blogs far exceeded Hangouts and Vialogues (see next ques)on) 21!

22 Word Cloud Hangout Facets 22!

23 Word Cloud Vialogues Facets 23!

24 Word Cloud Blog Facets 24!

25 Research Ques)on 2: Do the number of themes in students wri)ng vary across Hangouts, Vialogues, and Blogs? Generate seman)c Facets for the three text sources Count the number of unique Facets generated One- way ANOVA to compare means of themes Tukey post- hoc tests 25!

26 Results Differences noted in post-hoc tests! Blog Facets > Hangout Facets (p =.001)! Blog Facets > Vialogues Facets (p =.001)! 26!

27 Research Ques)on 3: How do the student text data reflect aspects of the Community of Inquiry? Set up special queries in Semantria Queries included terms related to Community of Inquiry Teaching Social Cogni)ve Means compared via one- way ANOVA No significant differences in CoI related themes found across Hangouts, Vialogues, and Blogs 27!

28 CoI Teaching Example I got some really good feedback on how to improve my WebQuest and just this whole way that you ve laid this out that we communicate with each other is brought my learning that much further down the road. From a Hangouts transcript 28!

29 CoI Social Example Even though I haven't been able to acbvely parbcipate in the hangouts because I work nights, I have really enjoyed this opbon as an alternabve to asynchronous discussion. The asynchronous discussions seem so much more disingenuous to me and, conversely, I actually appreciate being able to experience others' thought processes. From a Vialogues entry 29!

30 CoI Cogni)ve Example At this Bme my understanding of design process involves the planning with story boarding, which would translate into composing acbvibes for performance ensembles. Much more thought needs to be made in this area. From a blog entry 30!

31 Research Ques)on 4: What rela)onships occur between variables? Variables included Number of Hangouts par)cipated in by each student Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey scores Teaching Social Cogni)ve General seman)c Facets in Hangouts, Vialogues, and Blogs CoI related Themes in Hangouts, Vialogues, and Blogs Spearman correla)ons due to small sample sizes 31!

32 Correla)ons 32!

33 Discussion Students talked (Hangouts) and wrote (Vialogues, WordPress) about the most important themes from the course content. The number of meta- themes shared in blog posts (WordPress) was significantly higher than the number shared during synchronous (Hangouts) and asynchronous (Vialogues) video indica)ng that: Students expanded on themes discussed in synchronous and asynchronous video conferences during personal reflec)on. Blog reflec)ons did not have a )me limit Synchronous and asynchronous video serve as scaffolding tools for blogging, promo)ng reflec)on. Content- focused video and text transcripts plus small sample size may have limited occurrences of CoI elements within the dialogue and wri)ng. 33!

34 Benefits/Challenges of Synchronous and Asynchronous Video Benefits Reduc)on of procedural ques)ons by Absent students like interac)ng with video conference recording Students appreciate exposure to mul)ple technologies Video promotes gejng to know each other beber Challenges Finding mee)ng )me Group size Synchronous video requires planning/prompts Too many tools for some students/professors Camera shy Allen & Seaman, 2013, p. 22! Caladine, Andrews, Tynan, Smyth, & Vale, 2010, pp ! 34!

35 Student Evalua)on Google Hangout allowed for personal connec)on Vialogues was a convenient and useful method to interact with students if you were not able to abend the Hangout, s)ll felt like I got to know classmates beber that par)cipated in the Vialogues even if they weren't gejng to know me blog buddies: helped create a network of other educators who passed on helpful resources. 35!

36 Student Evalua)on It was hard to focus on one component of the class because it seemed like there were too many layers. Between the Google hangout or Vialogues, readings, blogging, responding to blogging, and skills test I felt I couldn't go in depth with any of them. 36!

37 Limita)ons Self- reported Single instructor Single course 37!

38 References Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online educa)on in the United States. Retrieve from hbp://sloanconsor)um.org/publica)ons/survey/changing_course_2012 Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving social presence through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Educa)on, 15, Caladine, R., Andrews, T., Tynan, B., Smyth, R., & Vale, D. (2010). New communica)ons op)ons: A renaissance in videoconference use. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance educa)on ( ). Edmonton, AB: AU Press. Carr, S. (2000). As distance educa)on comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Educa)on, 46(23). De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcript of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Educa)on, 46, doi: / j.compedu Garrison, D. R. (2011). E- learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and prac)ce (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Cri)cal inquiry in a text- based environment: Computer conferencing in higher educa)on. The Internet and Higher EducaBon, 2(2-3), Meyer, K. (2004). Evalua)ng online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh., M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student percep)ons of useful and challenging characteris)cs. Internet and Higher Educa)on, 7, doi: /j.iheduc Swan, K., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland- Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Valida)ng a measurement tool of presence in online communi)es of inquiry. e- Mentor, 24(2), Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). Analysis of research on the effec)veness of distance educa)on. Teachers College Record, 107(8), !

39 Study Contact David on Twiber hbp://google.com/+davidwicks1 on G+ 39!