MoSAIC: Models for Synchronous Audiographic Conferencing

Tim Neumann Dr Sara de FreitasInstitute of Education Serious Games Institute

LKL Lunchtime Seminar

Overview

• Synchronous Audiographic Conferencing

• Project Phase 1– Teachers as Media Producers in Virtual Classrooms

• Project Phase 2– MoSAIC

• Web Conferencing at the LKL

Audiographic Conferencing

Synchronous Audiographic Conferencing

Audiographic Conferencing

The Technology

Synchronous Audiographic Conferencing

Combination of:real-time tools for visual interactionwhile talking

Audiographic Conferencing

Cyclops

McConnell, D. (1983). Sharing the screen. Media in education and development, 16 (2).

FunctionalityTEXT-BASED TOOLS . Presence Indicators . Chat Logs . Transcripts . Private

Messaging . Instant Messaging . Moderated Chat . Avatars . Entry Announcements . Exit Announcements . Action Messages . Sound Effects .

Text Formatting . LIVE AUDIO AND VIDEO TOOLS . Live Audio . Voice-over-IP . Broadcast . Half Duplex . Full Duplex . Audio Controls . Telephony Integration . Live Video . Floating Video Display . Bandwidth Detection .

CONTENT, DISPLAY, AND INTERACTIVE TOOLS . Virtual Whiteboard . Moderated Use and Accountability . Image Imports . Layers . object-oriented .

Application Sharing . Screen Sharing . File Transfer . Slide Showing . Background Loading . Special Effects . Slide Libraries . Course Map . Site Map Integration . Guided Web Tours . Clickable Hyperlinks . Previewing . Filtering .

Polling . Quizzes . Question Types . Display of Results . Online Course Integration . VLE Integration . Activity Indicators . Remote Screen Viewing . Multimedia . Breakout Rooms . Recording and Playback . Navigation and

Searching . Feedback . Availability . Editing . Automatic Technical Checks . Three-Dimensional Rendering of Space and People . Specialised Tools .

Templates . and more…

Finkelstein, J (2006). Learning in Real Time. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Audiographic Conferencing

Main Functions

• VoIP: “Internet Telephony”• Text Chat• Shared Whiteboard• Co-Browsing• Other Collaborative Tools• Video Streaming

Audiographic Conferencing

Video?

• Rosell-Aguilar: – Slows down quality of audio

• Sweller: – Impedes learning, distractive, contradictory

• Matarazzo & Sellen:– Low quality more effective for task collaboration

• A number of researchers: – No significant advantage

Audiographic Conferencing

Video!

• For particular purposes

• Align with other media

Audiographic Conferencing

SAC in Distance Education. Why?• Flexibility for personalised human support• Community building, creating a sense of belonging• The voice as low-threshold communication mode• Motivation to participate (somebody is waiting)• Reflecting/responding under time pressure• Practicing oral rethorics & ICT skills• Effective role-play opportunities• Walk-through opportunities for complex issues• Force learners out of their comfort zone

Phase 1

Project Phase 1:

Teachers as Media Producers in Virtual Classrooms

Audiographic Conferencing

Parent Framework

ICE CReaM

Interactive and Collaborative E-Learning

using

Creative Real-Time Media

CDE Projects

Nov 05 Nov 06 Nov 07 Aug 08

Teachers as Media Producers inVirtual Classrooms

Nov 2005 – Oct 2006

MoSAIC:Models for Synchronous Audiographic Interactive Conferencing

Nov 2006 – Aug 2008

to examine roles oflecturers when using realtime conferencing

to develop models reflecting pedagogical theory and addressing specifics of realtime conferencing

Phase 1: Teachers as Media Producers

Main Aim:

AudiographicConferencing

AudiographicConferencing

Text

Audio

Graphics

Video

Live Quizzes

Instant Feedback

Shared Whiteboard

Application Sharing

Chat / Messaging

Voice-over-IP

?under-standing

skills

Roles

Teacher - Communication - Medium - Learning Experience

A Media Production Metaphor

Suggested Roles - Preparation:

Author Producer

Choreographer Production Designer

Correspondent Programmer

Director Runner

Engineer Screenwriter

Graphic Artist Storyboard Artist

Managerwww.skillset.org & Honthaner, E.L. (2001). The Complete Film Production Handbook. Oxford: Focal Press.

A Media Production Metaphor

Perceived Roles - Preparation:

• Very High:– Manager

• High:– Producer, Author, Correspondent, Programmer

• Average:– Director, Engineer, Production Designer

• Low:– Choreographer, Storyboard Artist,

Screenwriter, Graphic Artist

A Media Production Metaphor

Suggested Roles - Implementation:

Actor Narrator

Correspondent Operator

Director Performer

Engineer Presenter

Gaffer Runner

Instructional Designer Speaker

Moderator Teacherwww.skillset.org & Honthaner, E.L. (2001). The Complete Film Production Handbook. Oxford: Focal Press.

A Media Production Metaphor

Perceived Roles - Implementation:

• Very High:– Presenter, Moderator, Speaker

• High:– Instructional Designer, Operator, Director

• Average:– Teacher, Engineer, Correspondent, Narrator

• Low:– Performer, Runner, Gaffer, Actor

A Media Production Metaphor

Perceived Roles - Free Text:

• Overwhelmingly:– Participant– Observer– Passive Listener

• Individual Responses:– Spectator– Active Listener– Learner

Phase 1: Teachers as Media Producers

Findings + -Technology High reliability High anxiety

Satisfaction High satisfaction Reluctance to proactive use

SkillsOperational aspects unproblematic

Combination of media and realtime use difficult

Confidence Quickly risingFallback to 'safe & tested' teaching methods

Educational Use High potentialDifficult to identify use cases and application scenarios

Activity Levels High learner activityDifficult to design sensible activities

Self-Perception Lecturers: Director Learner: Passive roles

Phase 1: Teachers as Media Producers

Exemplary Quotes

Technology I don‘t think my students can manage that.

Satisfaction Great - I suddenly feel part of a large community.

SkillsIt was hard to listen to […], keep track of the texting and to reply to the whiteboard poll at the same time.

ConfidenceI think I lectured a bit too much, I need to get used to [the SAC tool].

Educational Use Let‘s not use the medium as a lecture tool.

Activity LevelsGood interaction generally, but hard for the [session leader] to respond. Some questions superficial.

Self-Perception I was a minor contributor / learner.

Phase 1: Teachers as Media Producers

Conclusions

• General recommendation of SAC?No

• Recommendation of SAC for specific purposes?Yes

Phase 2

Project Phase 2:

Models for Synchronous Audiographic Interactive Conferencing

Phase 2: MoSAIC

Models for Synchronous Audiographic Interactive Conferencing Project

Scoping ofSAC useat UoL

Review ofPedagogical

Models

User Testing

Data Analysis

Nov 06 Sep 07 Feb 08 May 08

Phase 2: MoSAIC

MoSAIC: Purpose

PedagogicalFramework

MoSAIC:SMAP

PracticalApplication

Text

Audio

Graphics

VideoLive Quizzes

Instant Feedback

Shared Whiteboard

Application Sharing

Chat / Messaging

Voice-over-IP

Learning Objectives

AssessmentAccreditation

Discipline

ContextConceptions

Theory

Learner BackgroundResources

Phase 2: MoSAIC

Review of Pedagogical Models

– Generic Pedagogical Models and Frameworks:available

– Specific Pedagogical Models for SAC:scarce

Scoping

Review

Phase 2: MoSAIC - Review

Salmon: Five-Stage Model

From http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/5stage.shtml

Phase 2: MoSAIC - Review

Laurillard: Conversational Framework

From http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~instructTech/lol/laurillard/index.htm

Phase 2: MoSAIC - Review

Garrison & Anderson: Community of Inquiry

From http://communitiesofinquiry.com/

Phase 2: MoSAIC – Beyond the Review

Four-Dimensional Framework

Sara de Freitas

Phase 2: MoSAIC – The Missing Link

Synchronous Media Attribution Process

Tim Neumann & Sara de Freitas

Phase 2: MoSAIC – Scoping StudyUoL College / Institute Prim Sec

Birkbeck, University of London Stream  

Central School of Speech and Drama VC  

Courtauld Institute of Art    

Goldsmiths, University of London VC Stream

Heythrop College    

Imperial College London VC Stream

The Institute of Cancer Research Podcst  

Institute of Education VC Stream

King's College London VC Stream

London Business School VC  

London School of Economics and Political Science VC   

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Stream  

Queen Mary, University of London VC Skype

Royal Academy of Music VC  

Royal Holloway, University of London VC  

The Royal Veterinary College    

St George's, University of London    

The School of Oriental and African Studies    

The School of Pharmacy    

UCL VC   

UoL College / Institute Prim Sec

School of Advanced Study :    

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies VC  

Institute of Classical Studies    

Institute of Commonwealth Studies    

Institute of English Studies    

Institute of Germanic & Romance Studies    

Institute of Historical Research    

Institute of Musical Research    

Institute of Philosophy    

Institute for the Study of the Americas    

Warburg Institute    

University of London Institute in Paris    

University Marine Biological Station, Millport    

Scoping

Review

Phase 2: MoSAIC

Current Steps

– Further development of FDF & SMAP

– Model & User testing

Scoping

Review

Use Case 1

Scoping

Review

• Teaching remote students

Use Case 2

Scoping

Review

• Remote guest expert lectures

Use Case 3

Scoping

Review

• F2F session recording

Use Case 4

Scoping

Review

• 24/7 Helpdesk / Virtual Office(also: one-to-one training / tutorials)

Use Case 5

Scoping

Review

• Supervision sessions(also: assignment feedback)

Use Case 6

Scoping

Review

• Remote Vivas(also: interviews, remote demonstrations)

Use Case 7

Scoping

Review

• Webcasts

Use Case 8

Scoping

Review

• Lecture / Conference Simulcasts

Use Case 9

Scoping

Review

• Multiple Venue Production

Use Case 10

Scoping

Review

• Multi-group meetings and activities

BreakoutRooms

MVP Case Study

Multiple Venue Production

Location Moderator

MVP Case Study

MVP Preparation

21 March

November December January February March

Start:

•Presenter OK

•Topic

•Strategy

Awareness Raising:

•One Email:

•CPD Depts.

•Good response

Organisation:

•Location Registration

•One Email:

•32 locations

•late comers accepted

Preparation:

•IT guidelines

Preparation:

•Location Moderator Training Session

Training:

•Presenter

Content:

•Handout of pre-session content

•Request for questions

Training:

•Location Moderators (2 sessions)

Session Design:

•Review of questions

•Slide development

•Time planning

•Pedagogic strategy

Communication:

•Constant contact with Location Moderators

MVP Case Study

MVP Session Design– Part 1: (70 minutes)

• Ten-Minute Presentation• Collaborative Activity:

– Two polling questions (yes/no) [shared whiteboard]– One question for 3-minute local discussion [chat / mic]

• Repeat 4x (= 5 sequences in total)

– Part 2: (50 minutes)• Local group discussion (15 minutes)• Responses from individual locations• Open Q&A session

MVP Case Study

Participant Survey

• Session Quality:– High satisfaction with the session– Very positive learning experience– Many opportunities for local interaction– Not many opportunities for online interaction– Only average involvement of participants– Good organisation

Web Conferencing at the LKL

Web Conferencing at the LKL

Audiographic Conferencing

Further Information:

www.lkl.ac.uk/research/mosaic

Tim Neumann

t.neumann@ioe.ac.uk

www.lkl.ac.uk/LTU