Synchronous and asynchronous video conferencing tools

1,672 views
1,529 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,672
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Synchronous and asynchronous video conferencing tools

  1. 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. 2. Poll: Use of Asynchronous Tech ! Do you use asynchronous communication tools in your online course?!
  3. 3. Poll: Use of Synchronous Tech ! Do you use synchronous communication tools in your online course?!
  4. 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. 5. Asynchronous  Communica)on   Advantages   Drawbacks   •  Convenient   •  Flexible   •  Grants  addi)onal  )me  for   reflec)on  and  prepara)on   of  responses   •  Provides  record  of  ac)vity   •  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. 6. Synchronous  Communica)on   Advantages   Drawbacks   •  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   •  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. 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. 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. 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. 253-254! 9!
  10. 10. https://coi.athabascau.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/coiAS3.swf! Community  of  Inquiry   10!
  11. 11. Prac)cal  Inquiry  Model   11! http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/229_10_1108_S2044-9968_2011_0000004011.png!
  12. 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. 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   Asynchronous   video  discussion   Interact  with   the  )me-­‐ challenged   Students  reflect   on  learning   Shared  publicly   to  encourage   quality/ interac)on   Vialogues   WordPress   13!
  14. 14. Hangouts  on  Air   14!
  15. 15. Using  PollEverywhere  in  Hangouts   15!
  16. 16. Vialogues   16!
  17. 17. bPor`olio  using  WordPress.com   17!
  18. 18. Prac)cal  Inquiry  Model   Find & Share Resources! Hangout Participation! Assigned readings! Vialogues Participation! Instructor Prompt in Bb! WordPress Reflection! 18! http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/229_10_1108_S2044-9968_2011_0000004011.png!
  19. 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. 20. Results   20!
  21. 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. 22. Word  Cloud  –  Hangout  Facets   22!
  23. 23. Word  Cloud  –  Vialogues  Facets   23!
  24. 24. Word  Cloud  –  Blog  Facets   24!
  25. 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. 26. Results   Differences noted in post-hoc tests! •  Blog Facets > Hangout Facets (p = .001)! •  Blog Facets > Vialogues Facets (p = .001)! 26!
  27. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 32. Correla)ons   32!
  33. 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. 34. Benefits/Challenges  of  Synchronous   and  Asynchronous  Video   Benefits   •  Reduc)on  of  procedural   ques)ons  by  email   •  “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. 253-254! 34!
  35. 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. 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. 37. Limita)ons   •  Self-­‐reported   •  Single  instructor   •  Single  course     37!
  38. 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,  195-­‐203.   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  (249-­‐266).   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,  6-­‐28.  doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2005.04.005   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),  87–105.   Meyer,  K.  (2004).  Evalua)ng  online  discussions:  Four  different  frames  of  analysis.  Journal  of  Asynchronous   Learning  Networks,  8(2),  101–114.   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,  59-­‐70.  doi:10.1016/j.iheduc. 2003.11.003     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),  1–12.   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),  1836-­‐1884.   38!
  39. 39. Study  Contact   David  Wicks   –  dwicks@spu.edu   –  @drdavidwicks  on  Twiber   –  hbp://google.com/+DavidWicks1  on  G+   39!

×