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!
Poll: Use of Asynchronous Tech !
Do you use asynchronous communication tools in your online course?!
Poll: Use of Synchronous Tech !
Do you use synchronous communication tools in your online course?!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
Community of Inquiry ht
tps:
//coi
.ath
abas
cau.
ca/w
p-co
nten
t/upl
oads
/201
3/09
/coi
AS3.
swf!
10!
Prac)cal Inquiry Model
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/229_10_1108_S2044-9968_2011_0000004011.png!11!
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!
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!
Hangouts on Air
14!
Using PollEverywhere in Hangouts
15!
Vialogues
16!
bPor`olio using WordPress.com
17!
Prac)cal Inquiry Model
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/229_10_1108_S2044-9968_2011_0000004011.png!
Instructor Prompt in Bb!
Assigned readings!Find & Share Resources! Hangout Participation!
Vialogues Participation!
WordPress Reflection!
18!
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!
Results
20!
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!
Word Cloud – Hangout Facets
22!
Word Cloud – Vialogues Facets
23!
Word Cloud – Blog Facets
24!
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!
Results
Differences noted in post-hoc tests!• Blog Facets > Hangout Facets (p = .001)!• Blog Facets > Vialogues Facets (p = .001)!
26!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
Correla)ons
32!
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!
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!
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!
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!
Limita)ons
• Self-‐reported • Single instructor • Single course
37!
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!
Study Contact
David Wicks – [email protected] – @drdavidwicks on Twiber – hbp://google.com/+DavidWicks1 on G+
39!
