Web conferencing as a Means of Enhancing Online Learning in a

							 Web Conferencing as a Means of
Enhancing Online Learning in a
  Hybrid Course Delivery Model
           Anita Zijdemans Boudreau
                 College of Education



          SITE 2009 Brief Paper Presentation
                   Context

• Challenge for the Flex Educational
  Technology course [4x7-hour courses]
• Decision to develop hybrid or blended model
• Problem for Online Learning –
  How do we recreate the intimate presence
  and rich interaction that typically exists in
  real-time, face-to-face contexts?
                           Web Conferencing
potential for enriching learning experience, establishing a web-accessible knowledge base, &
cultivating ground for the germination of communities of practice (Zijdemans, 2005)


Interactive Computer Web-based application
Host streams live:
•Video [web cam/digital camera]
•VOIP [Voice over Internet Protocol]
•Information [ppts, polls, apps, etc.]
to remote participants at their personal
computers

             Synchronous  Asynchronous
               Live Sessions  Archives
             Integrated Research Design
Action Research – improve practice or an area of concern,
   using an iterative research-implement-evaluate cycle, in
   order to focus the researcher’s direct actions of practice
   within a participatory community. (Cobb et al. 2003 p.9).
Integrative Learning Design [ILD] – Bannan-Ritland’s (2003)
   “…socially constructed, contextualized process for
   producing educationally effective interventions with a high
   likelihood of being used in practice.” (p.22)
TPACK – evaluate the affordance of the web conferencing
   application [T] to support enriched experiential and
   collaborative learning [P] for an ed. technology course [CK].
   (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
NETS*T – monitor student progress in relation to NETS*T
                Research Questions
1. How easy was it to learn and use the technology?
2. What were the participants’ perceptions of the level
   of engagement in online sessions in comparison to
   face-to-face sessions?
3. How did the online sessions using the web
   conferencing impact on the participants’ learning
   experience?
4. What were the perceived strengths and
   weaknesses of the technology?
5. What were the participants’ responses to the hybrid
   delivery model?
                 Project Details
Participants
• N = 8 [5 graduate + 3 in service teachers]
• Entry level skill range low to average
• Fall 2008 Flex Educational Technology course
• Hybrid Model 4 F2F + 4 OL using web conferencing
Data Sources
• Student blogs: min 1 entry /class
• Transcripts of online sessions
• Exit Survey: rating scales + open-ended
• NETS*T self-evaluation
                                                   WEB
                                         VLE




                                                     CONFERENCING
    BOOK
DISCUSSION




             STUDENT
                   BLOGS




                                               PROJECT




                                                           WIKI
                           GOOGLE




                           SITE PORTAL
            Outcomes – Summary
• Technology-related comments significantly
  decreased while content-related commentary
  increased by the last session [learning curve]
• “Chatter” F2Fdistracting, OL chat unobtrusive
  & allowed sharing of thoughts on what they were
  witnessing. Focused distraction (Bailey, 2008)
• Students’ confidence increased with practice 
  chat preferred to voice – except for project
  presentations – but not all features were used
• Students helped each other out with technical
  problems [e.g. instructor’s lost connection]
Outcomes - Survey
     Q5. Strengths, Limitations & Suggestions for
                 Future Improvement




Overwhelming support for the hybrid course model
“I believe it is a useful tool & when used in balance to f2f can greatly strengthen a program.”
Outcomes – NETS*T
               Lessons Learned

• Both the instructor and the students felt
  that the web conferencing tool was most
  effective when it was used to demonstrate
  applications, provide virtual tours to places
  that students might not be able to navigate
  on their own – e.g. Second Life – and have
  students conduct presentations
  [vs. listening to a lecture]
                     Action Plan
•   First Class must be Face-to-face session.
•   Develop Comprehensive Back-Up Plan [conference]
•   Use poll feature for immediate feedback
•   Keep 50-minute sessions hold 4 plus orientation
•   Consider using for Office hours
•   Increase Student Involvement – use more collaborative
    features [e.g. break-out groups, voice]
•   Minimize lectures, Increase demonstrations & virtual tours
    – e.g. Second Life
•   Assistant Troubleshooter: hard to do this and teach
                  Next Steps

•   Broader implementation
•   Work with colleagues interested in develop
    hybrid courses using Web Conferencing
•   Start exploring application of Web
    Conferencing in distance courses [online
    only]
                             References
• Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003) The Role of Design in Research: The
  integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher Vol 32,
  No1 pp 21-24.
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content
  Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College
  Record 108 (6), 1017-1054.
• Smith, M. K. (2001) 'David A. Kolb on experiential learning', the
  encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/b-
  explrn.htm.
• Zijdemans, A., Moore, G., Baecker, R., & Keating, D. P. (2005). ePresence
  Interactive Media and WebForum 2001: An accidental case study on the
  use of webcasting as a VLE for early child development. In J. Weiss, J.
  Nolan, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), International handbook of virtual learning
  environments (pp. 1365-1397). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
  Academic.
• Anita’s sitehttp://sites.google.com/site/anitazboudreau/Home/second-
  life