1. The document discusses lessons learned from a trial of using new video conferencing technology called ClassroomXP for distance education courses between the University of Washington and Microsoft. 2. The trial encountered several technical issues including poor video and audio quality due to network problems, as well as room configuration challenges that made it difficult for remote students to interact. 3. As a result of the technical difficulties, interaction between sites was limited and remote students were less engaged. Faculty also focused more on teaching the local class. The document advocates for improved network monitoring, dedicated classrooms, and easier setup of video conferencing systems.

1. Lessons Learned using the Classroom Experience Project How to fail at video conferenced teaching Jay Beavers, Microsoft Research Richard Anderson, Univ of Washington

2. UW Professional Master's Program Five year old program with established distance courses. One course per quarter video conferenced between UW and Microsoft. One evening per week Commuting distance

3. Before ClassroomXP technology ISDN Based video conferencing Netmeeting for PowerPoint distribution Electronic white board Lecture archive Continual improvement in quality Lighting, microphones, audio processing, camera management, etc.

4. How to fail at video conferencing, Jim Gemmel Voice quality must be competitive with telephony Video should increase, not decrease ‘presence’ Starting up a video conference should be as easy as making a telephone call Video conferencing must be ubiquitous

5. Potential advantages for using ConferenceXP Higher quality video and audio Ease of setup and installation Address some known problems Whiteboard

6. Friendly Environment for ClassroomXP trials Substantial resources on both sides Established program Near-located Existing relationship Experiment Is higher quality video better Better interactivity through ink on PPT

7. What we hoped to achieve Increased interaction between sites Ability of remote students to interact with the instructor Ability of instructor to engage remote students Student interaction across sites No degradation of experience of local students No System Administrator

8. What happened Week 1 Used old system (for comparison) Weeks 2-4 Bad patch cable caused 30% packet loss, maiming Conferencing app Weeks 5-9 Router incompatibilities caused intermittent multicast failure (~15 minutes between failure) Weeks 10-12 Worked as expected

9. How to fail at a distance course Transmission failures Production quality Lighting, room noise, camera management Structured presentations limit activity Classroom issues Table layout, overhead positionning Attitudes

10. Transmission failures No connection – if the bits don’t get through, there is no class Interruptions – short failures Degradation of performance (audio, video, signal and latency)

11. Production quality Microphones Not picking up sound Picking up too much Lighting Camera quality Field of view Distance

12. Presentation Restrictions imposed by technology Limitations on materials Loss of fidelity of transmitted materials

13. Classroom issues Placement of projectors Dispersal of audience Student seating Conference rooms versus lecture hall

14. Attitudes Resentment of technology Not attempting to engage other site Instructor – not encouraging questions Students – not asking questions

15. Multicast Lack of reliability Vender incompatibility issues Substantial time to localize problems Intermittent failures

16. Multicast test tools Details on what is needed – it would be great to create interest in this

17. Room Configuration Screen 1 Screen 2 Seating Seating Seating

18. Content Issues Sound issues – difficulty of room(s). Value of picking up background noise (sense of presence). Camera issues in remote room Configuration required students to sit at distance Some students avoided sitting in field of view

19. Student Reactions I Repeated failures reduced students attempt to interact across sites Even intermittent failures had significant psychological impact Students recognized that we were attempting to do a good job (we were present in the remote classroom, and shared their pain)

20. Student Reactions II With our workarounds (high latency video, conference phone) students did not participate. In spite of technical difficulties many students chose to attend the remote site (commuting 15 miles in traffic being an alternative) Local students complained of intrusiveness of interruptions. Had little sympathy for remote students.

21. Faculty Reaction With technological difficulties, taught primarily to local class Presentation tools readily accepted

22. Take 2 Network diagnostics & testing 7x24 test agents Long term statistics gathering & web reporting Concept of “Administrative Console” Diagnostics to quickly determine fault Over 20 points of potential failure in “I can’t hear the professor” Non-invasive reset, diagnostics, configuration change Rooms dedicated to distance classes Lighting, wall color, ceiling mikes, projector & A/C noise, projector positioning, table layout Ease of startup & shutdown