Multipoint Videoconferencing: Using Constructivist Strategies to Engage Adult Learners

Multipoint Videoconferencing: Using Constructivist Strategies to Engage Adult Learners Katherine L. Hayden, Ed. D. Assistant Professor California State University San Marcos Joan H. Hanor, Ph. D. Associate Professor California State University San Marcos Richard Harrison Production/Program Manager of the Instruction Television Unit San Diego County Office of Education Introduction and Background With the expanding infrastructure for telecommunication in the world today, new applications for communications are emerging. To assure success in the workplace of tomorrow, it will be necessary for students to have collaboration and communication skills that utilize technology tools (CEO Forum, 1997; Schlechty, 1997). Videoconferencing, also referred to as teleconferencing, is a two-way method of communication between two or more groups in separate locations via audio, video, and/or computer systems. As a communicative technology, videoconferencing offers the potential to provide students relevant skills, connect distant or remote learners, and induce change. These communication elements are central to the mission statement at California State University San Marcos. The faculty is committed to transforming public education and has engaged in research that identifies effective teaching and learning strategies within distance learning environments that include videoconferencing (Hanor, Hollenbeck & Wendling, 1997; Hayden & Hanor, 2002). One simple definition of distance learning is, learning without the physical presence of the instructor (Mantyla, 1999, p. 4). As in distance learning, videoconferencing may separate teachers physically from learners. What is lost and what is gained in the process of separation? Teachers and administrators must confront issues such as these while they receive training in the design and application of appropriate uses of videoconferencing to support effective, efficient, and meaningful learning. As educators are exposed to new methods for instructional delivery, old analogies are often applied. Educators tend to use new technologies within the context of their perceptions of instructional strategies (Hayden, 1999). Videoconferencing experiences can be effectively integrated into constructivist learning environments. The results of a videoconferencing study completed in 1999 (Hayden) were used to guide the planning of videoconferencing seminars for a professional development project implemented in Southern California between May 2000 and May 2002. Improving for All Students through Technology (ILAST) was one of thirty state funded professional development projects to improve K-12 teachers and administrators skills for applying technology to teaching and learning. Within the context of the ILAST partnership, a collaborative system for videoconferencing was established in which the San Diego County Office of Education provided a bridge for multi-point connections among four to five locations simultaneously. Using dial-in systems for connectivity, each site had two-way visual and audio access. While technical information can be provided for duplicating this system, the intent of this paper is to share the pedagogical research and discoveries that have been made as a result of these experiences with multi-point videoconferencing. Research and Philosophical Foundations A study completed in 1999 (Hayden) used the Delphi process to collect data regarding connections between videoconferencing and instructional strategies that enable constructivist learning. A panel of experts was asked to draw from their experiences with education, technology, and videoconferencing to identify characteristics and critical support strategies necessary for videoconferencing in constructivist K-12 environments. The panel s recommendations have provided a guide for technology trainers and professional development planners in implementing effective teacher training and support. 1

Twenty characteristics of videoconferencing that support constructivist learning emerged in the study completed by Hayden (1999). These twenty characteristics are categorized into four themes in Table 1: (a) connections, (b) questioning, (c) learning, and (d) interaction. Within this list of twenty characteristics, ten characteristics of videoconferencing were rated higher than the other ten. By organizing the top ten characteristics by theme area, learning experiences using videoconferencing to support constructivist learning can be planned. Table 1 shows how a videoconferencing project can incorporate all ten of the top videoconferencing characteristics. Table 1. Planning An Activity Using The Top Ten Characteristics Of Videoconferencing That Support Constructivist Environments (Hayden, 1999) Theme Connections Questioning Interaction Characteristic Synchronous connections between students and primary sources such as experts and remote locations; involving multiple sites in activities. Students develop and ask questions; they are in charge of their learning. Students present to remote partners using audio and video for communication. Students work in groups on authentic activities with remote sites. This involves videoconferencing with remote sites and use of an online suite of tools to support videoconferencing activities. Scenario: Students are assigned an authentic task that offers opportunities for planning connections outside the classroom with experts and primary sources such as museums. The students plan, develop and ask questions during a videoconference to collect information and gain an understanding of key concepts. The students use a suite of online tools as follow-up to the initial interaction and then present their findings live to remote partners concluding their research. Development of Strategies Based on Research The format for the ILAST videoconferences was developed using the effective constructivist practices and interactive techniques identified by Hayden (1999) in four categories. Connections Participants contributed to the selection of topics and attended videoconferences at one of five locations convenient to their school or home. Experts and/presenters shared ideas, projects, resources, and provided opportunities for participants to raise questions, respond to content and interact with other participants or materials during the seminars. During some seminars, additional sites were invited to connect and participate in order to provide access to primary sources of information located remotely. Sometimes a discussant summarized key issues, suggested connections, identified emerging themes and trends, or pointed out possible areas for future research or collaboration. Participants from all of the sites were invited to contribute to group discussions and ask questions during designated times of each seminar. Questioning A key component of each videoconference seminar was question-and-answer periods encouraging participants to clarify and confirm concepts. Participants frequently were divided into groups and worked collaboratively at each site and among sites to raise questions, identify critical issues and reflect on the session with guidance from appointed facilitators. The use of laptops at each site enabled individual or small group inquiry into designated software or online resources appropriate to the topic of study. Each site shared questions, responses, and reflections and continued to build knowledge on the topics following the interactive seminars. 2

When teachers are learning to integrate technology into their classrooms, the most important staff-development features include opportunities to explore, reflect, collaborate with peers, work on authentic learning tasks, and engage in hands-on, active learning (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997, p. 142). Participants were engaged in the process as well as the content of the seminars. Participants contributed to the design, implementation and assessment of videoconferences and practiced methods and strategies that had been modeled at previous videoconferences. This contributed to understanding the videoconferencing components that could be applied to their own classrooms. Presenters were located at different sites and sometimes at more than one site to distribute the expertise and collaboration among the partner locations. Whenever possible participants were invited to share their expertise at future seminars and reflect on their learning experiences with their mentors. Interaction Using real-time interaction through computer text-chat or videoconferencing programs create a telepresence between students and other people around the world" (Harris, 1998, p. 8). After each videoconference, opportunities were structured that enabled participants to contact experts, contribute to discussion threads in an online bulletin board, and visit resources posted on the ILAST web page (http://www.csusm.edu/ilast). While some issues and topics were derived from the competency-based curriculum for ILAST, participants played a critical role in determining topics that they considered valuable. This enabled topics such as Addressing the Needs of English Language Learners, an issue at many partner schools in Southern California, to be included. A search identified several local experts and examples of best practices that had been implemented by nearby schools, including ILAST partner schools. The experts not only shared their experiences and projects, but also invited participants to visit their schools. They encouraged continued contact through email. Conclusions Each of the eleven ILAST videoconference seminars provided an opportunity to reflect and evaluate the effectiveness of the conference formats. Participants completed evaluation forms at the end of each seminar. The ILAST leadership team analyzed and reviewed participant comments and reflections. Lessons were learned regarding selection of format and content to best meet program and learner needs. The leadership team found the following: In response to technical analysis of connections, participants were fairly accepting of temporary visual disconnects, but much more limited in their tolerance for auditory problems. Participants appreciated strongly presented content with explicit links to standards and curricula and visuals to support key concepts. ILAST seminars used video, document cameras, presentation software and web projection to broadcast visual images. Each of these media offered support for visual learning but the technology offered challenges through varying bandwidth, and audio/video technical difficulties. When technical difficulties were experienced, the participants were very critical and felt as though their time was not productive. Backup plans, as recommended in the findings by Hayden (1999), were essential so that each site could proceed independently when technical difficulties were experienced. One difficulty was that experts in the content area could not be at all sites and site facilitators lacked confidence in assuming the role of an expert. Participants identified certain criteria for determining their satisfaction with the ability to raise questions and interact with content as well as people. They questioned the efficiency and effectiveness of videoconferencing in comparison to other learning formats. Although each seminar had scheduled times and activities for interaction with content, experts and other practitioners, the ratings for the evaluation question: rate the ability with which you were able to participate in the videoconference ranged from low (47 % rated a 1) to high (57% rated 5) on a five-point Likert scale. The category of learning was evaluated in the survey by asking several questions related to content, application and satisfaction with the seminar content. Opportunities for questioning and interaction during each conference were thought to provide an opportunity to engage and motivate participants. Evaluation responses to learning were shared through reflections during the conference and through posting and emails to instructors and experts following the conference. The area of content was generally rated high when the technology worked and participants could see and hear the transmission. When participants Copyright were 2005 asked The to Board identify of Regents the best of the thing University about of Wisconsin the videoconference, System. they always overwhelmingly responded that Duplication the presenters or redistribution were prohibited most important, without written followed permission by the of the area author(s) of content. 3

Preparing our presenters for the interactive format of the seminars presented another challenge. Guidelines were prepared and sent to presenters ahead of time to help them prepare for interactive formats, but this issue continued to be a challenge. Most of the experts that were scheduled as presenters, planned to present information in a lecture format in their content proposals in spite of the recommendations. Each time this occurred, the participants responded in their evaluations by stating that they needed more interaction and less lecture. The planning team found it helpful to post preseminar information on a web page prior to the videoconference to prepare participants in advance for the seminar. This activity encouraged increased interaction with the content, with the expert and/or materials being presented during the videoconference. Implications and Future Work The ILAST leadership team has further investigated the findings from the Delphi Study and has found the characteristics recommended by the study to be valid. As the second year of professional development draws to a close, the evaluations for all videoconferences are being continually analyzed to document the successes and challenges. The leadership team plans to further the study and identification of effective constructivist practices for interactive videoconferencing for professional development. The support strategies for videoconferencing have been distributed to the schools in the ILAST partnership. This study will help inform decisions made by schools and districts planning to acquire videoconferencing equipment and implement this new media in student learning activities. References CEO Forum. (1997). School Technology and readiness report: From pillars to progress. Retrieved November 4, 1997, from http://www.ceoforum.org/report97 Hanor, J., Hollenbeck, J., & Wendling, L. (1997, October) LIVE stories: in an interactive video environment. Paper presented at Tel Ed Conference 97, Austin, Texas: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Harris, J. (1998, September). Curriculum-based telecollaboration: Using activity structures to design student projects. & Leading With Technology 26 (1), 6-15. Hayden, K. L. (1999). Videoconferencing in k-12 education: A Delphi study of characteristics and critical strategies to support constructivist learning experiences (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University), 1999. Dissertation Abstracts International. Hayden, K. L., & Hanor, J. H. (2002, June). Videoconferencing: A tool for collaboration and professional development. Paper presented at ED-MEDIA: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Denver, CO: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. ILAST (2001). Improving learning for all students through technology. Retrieved December 18, 2001, from http://www.csusm.edu/ilast Mantyla, K. (1999). Interactive distance learning exercises that really work! Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C. & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College. Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Biographical Sketches Katherine L. Hayden is an assistant Copyright professor 2005 The Board of educational of Regents of technology the University at of Wisconsin California System. State University San Marcos. As Coordinator of Curriculum and Duplication Instruction or redistribution for ILAST: prohibited Improving without written permission for All of Students the author(s) through Technology, she has 4

expanded her research on videoconferencing to include development of online environments, professional development, and the use of video technologies to support learning. Address: 333 South Twin Oaks Valley Road San Marcos, CA 92096-0001 E-mail: khayden@csusm.edu Phone: 760.750.8545 Joan H. Hanor is an associate professor in the College of Education at California State University San Marcos. Her research interests include the aesthetics of learning with technology and its impact on issues of equity and diversity. As Director of ILAST: Improving for All Students through Technology, she applies emerging technologies to the continuum of professional development. Address: 333 South Twin Oaks Valley Road San Marcos, CA 92096-0001 E-mail: jhanor@csusm.edu Phone: 760.750.4305 Richard Harrison is Production/Program Manager of the Instruction Television Unit for the San Diego County Office of Education's Joe Rindone Regional Technology Center. Mr. Harrison is SDCOE's chief producer/director for live television, video taped resources, and online video production. His background in theater and television spans thirty years. Richard is a multiple Emmy award winner whose skills include writing, producing, directing, and designing. Address: 6401 Linda Vista Road San Diego, CA 92111-7399 E-mail: rahar@sdcoe.k12.ca.us Phone: 858.292.3726 5