Presentation given at the 2009 Wimba Connect Conference. The presentation discusses why The University of Southern Mississippi (Southern Miss) chose to use Wimba classroom, the implementation phase, and the evaluation of that implementation. The methodology and instrument used to conduct the research study as well as the results of the data analysis and discussion are included.

1. A Research Study on
the Use of Wimba
Classroom
Jalynn Roberts, Ph.D.
Mary Nell McNeese, Ph.D.
Amy Thornton, M.S.

2. Phased Pilot
• Fall 2006 “Pilot”
o 1 course - managed outside of Blackboard
• Spring 2007 Pilot - 12 courses
o 10 inside Blackboard; 2 per college as selected by
Deans
o 2 outside Blackboard
• Received all-day training by Wimba
• Added more faculty in March by invitation
• Summer 2007 - offered university-wide

3. Methodology
• 2 Survey Instruments
o Instructors
o Students
• Responses
o 5 Instructors
o 19 Students

4. Skill Level With Computer Technology
Instructors
• Very Proficient with desktop
and web-based applications
(40%)
• Familiar with using a
computer and office
application suites, but not
familiar with hardware
technologies (60%)
Students
• Very Proficient with desktop
and web-based applications
(52.6%)
• Familiar with using a
computer and office
application suites, but not
familiar with hardware
technologies (42.1%)
• Can use a computer to
accomplish basic tasks
(5.3%)

5. Course Taught/Taken Through
Online Delivery – Fully or Partially
Instructors
• 3 or more courses (40%)
• 1 or 2 courses (60%)
Students
• 3 or more courses (57.9%)
• 1 or 2 courses (42.1%)

6. Previous Use of Collaboration Before
Using Live Classroom
Instructors
• Yes (100%)
Students
• Yes (68.4%)
• No (31.6%)

7. Type of Internet Connection Used
Instructors
• Dial-up (0%)
• DSL (60%)
• Cable (20%)
• LAN (0%)
• Don’t know (20%)
Students
• Dial-up (5.3%)
• DSL (36.8%)
• Cable (42.1%)
• LAN (15.8%)
• Don’t know (5.3%)

8. Describe Your Experience With
Learning to Use Live Classroom
Instructors
• Very Easy (0%)
• Somewhat Easy (40%)
• Neutral (40%)
• Somewhat Difficult (20%)
• Very Difficult (0%)
Students
• Very Easy (57.9%)
• Somewhat Easy (26.3%)
• Neutral (5.3%)
• Somewhat Difficult (10.5%)
• Very Difficult (0%)

9. Features Utilized While Using Live
Classroom
Instructor
• PowerPoint (100%)
• Text Chat (80%)
• Voice Chat (80%)
• Whiteboard (60%)
• Application Sharing (40%)
• Polling/Quizzes (60%)
• File Sharing (40%)
Student
• PowerPoint (100%)
• Text Chat (84.2%)
• Voice Chat (78.9%)
• Whiteboard (57.9%)
• Application Sharing (15.8%)
• Polling/Quizzes (15.8%)
• File Sharing (10.5%)

10. Usefulness/Ease of Use for Text Chat
Instructors
• Excellent (20%)
• Good (80%)
• Neutral (0%)
• Fair (0%)
• Poor (0%)
Students
• Excellent (57.9%)
• Good (31.6%)
• Neutral (0%)
• Fair (5.3%)
• Poor (0%)

11. Usefulness/Ease of Use for Voice
Chat
Instructors
• Excellent (20%)
• Good (60%)
• Neutral (20%)
• Fair (0%)
• Poor (0%)
Students
• Excellent (26.3%)
• Good (52.6%)
• Neutral (5.3%)
• Fair (10.5%)
• Poor (5.3%)

12. Usefulness/Ease of Use for the
Whiteboard Feature
Instructors
• Excellent (20%)
• Good (40%)
• Neutral (20%)
• Fair (0%)
• Poor (0%)
• Did not use (20%)
Students
• Very Useful (26.3%)
• Somewhat Useful
(36.8%)
• Not Useful (0%)
• Did Not Use (31.6%)
• No Answer (5.3%)

13. Usefulness/Ease of Use for the
Application Sharing Feature
Instructors
• Excellent (0%)
• Good (0%)
• Neutral (60%)
• Fair (40%)
• Poor (40%)
Students
• Very Useful (15.8%)
• Somewhat Useful
(26.3%)
• Not Useful (0%)
• Did Not Use (52.6%)
• Did Not Answer (5.3%)

14. Usefulness/Ease of Use for the
Polling/Quizzing Feature
Instructors
• Excellent (0%)
• Good (60%)
• Fair (40%)
• Poor (0%)
Students
• Very Useful (15.8%)
• Somewhat Useful
(15.8%)
• Not Useful (0%)
• Did Not Use (63.2%)
• Did Not Answer (5.3%)

15. Usefulness/Ease of Use for the File
Sharing Feature
Instructors
• Excellent (0%)
• Good (40%)
• Neutral (40%)
• Fair (20%)
• Poor (0%)
Students
• Very Useful (10.5%)
• Somewhat Useful
(21.1%)
• Not Useful (0%)
• Did Not Use (63.2%)
• Did Not Answer (5.3%)

16. Usefulness/Ease of Use for the Hand-
Raising Feature
Instructors
• Very Useful (40%)
• Somewhat Useful (60%)
• Not Useful (0%)
Students
• Very Useful (63.2%)
• Somewhat Useful
(21.1%)
• Not Useful (0%)
• Did Not Use (15.8%)

17. Usefulness/Ease of Use for the
Polling Feature
Instructors
• Very Useful (60%)
• Somewhat Useful (20%)
• Not Useful (0%)
• Did Not Use (20%)
Students
• Very Useful (68.4%)
• Somewhat Useful
(26.3%)
• Not Useful (0%)
• Did Not Use (5.3%)

18. Usefulness/Ease of Use for
Accessing Archive of Previous
Sessions
Instructors
• Excellent (0%)
• Good (60%)
• Neutral (0%)
• Fair (20%)
• Poor (0%)
• Did Not Use (20%)
Students
• Excellent (21.1%)
• Good (15.8%)
• Neutral (10.5%)
• Fair (0%)
• Poor (15.8%)
• Did Not Use (31.6%)

19. Audio Quality During Voice
Discussions
Instructors
• Very Clear (0%)
• Somewhat Clear (100%)
• Neutral (0%)
• Somewhat Unclear (0%)
• Very Unclear (0%)
Students
• Very Clear (5.3%)
• Somewhat Clear
(57.9%)
• Neutral (5.3%)
• Somewhat Unclear
(21.1%)
• Very Unclear (10.5%)

20. Overall Usefulness of Live Classroom
Instructors
• Very Useful (80%)
• Somewhat Useful (20%)
• Not Useful (0%)
Students
• Very Useful (89.5%)
• Somewhat Useful
(5.3%)
• Not Useful (5.3%)

21. Level of Technical Problems With
Using Live Classroom
Instructors
• Very Severe (0%)
• Severe (0%)
• Moderate (60%)
• Minimal (40%)
• Non-existent (0%)
Students
• Very Severe (5.3%)
• Severe (10.5%)
• Moderate (42.1%)
• Minimal (31.6%)
• Non-existent (5.3%)
• Did Not Answer (5.3%)

22. Technical Support Services Used
Instructors
• 24/7 Phone Support (20%)
• Website Support (0%)
• Learning Enhancement
Center (80%)
• Didn’t Require (0%)
• Learning Enhancement
Center Staff (20%)
• Graduate Assistant (20%)
Students
• 24/7 Phone Support (5.3%)
• Website Support (5.3%)
• iTech Helpdesk (21.1%)
• Didn’t Require (42.1%)
• Learning Enhancement
Center Staff (0%)
• Instructor (52.6%)
• Another Instructor (5.3%)

23. Quality of Technical Support
Instructors
• Excellent (40%)
• Good (20%)
• Neutral (0%)
• Fair (20%)
• Poor (0%)
• Did Not Use (20%)
Students
• Excellent (26.3%)
• Good (21.1%%)
• Neutral (0%)
• Fair (0%)
• Poor (5.3%)
• Did Not Use (47.4%)

24. Description of Technical Difficulties -
Instructors
• Three instructors reported that they experienced audio issues,
especially when students tried to transmit to them audibly. The
problems ranged from being garbled to being totally inaudible.
• One professor mentioned the inability to show copyrighted
video, but also that Wimba was looking for a way to resolve
that issue.
• One professor said that he/she was kicked out of the sessions
for no reason, and that some students experienced the same
difficulties.
• Better troubleshooting tips are needed for students.

25. Description of Technical Difficulties -
Students
• Accessing archived sessions was time consuming and
sometimes impossible.
• Problems with logging into the system.
• Seven students reported issues regarding the audio. These
issues included clarity, voices fading in and out, and a total
loss of audio at times.
• Speed of connection was an issue for one student. This
student said he/she was about five minutes behind during
some sessions.

26. Additional Comments - Instructors
• All of the comments mentioned the reliability of Wimba,
and that the program’s potential will not be realized until
the aforementioned technical issues are resolved.
• All of the instructors agreed that while they did not
experience any major issues with Wimba, it will be a
valuable tool once its reliability issues have been
resolved.

27. Additional Comments - Students
• All of the comments mentioned the reliability of
Wimba, and that the program’s potential will not be
realized until the aforementioned technical issues
are resolved.
• All of the instructors agreed that while they did not
experience any major issues with Wimba, it will be a
valuable tool once its reliability issues have been
resolved.

28. Analysis
• All of the comments mentioned the reliability of
Wimba, and that the program’s potential will not be
realized until the aforementioned technical issues
are resolved.
• All of the instructors agreed that while they did not
experience any major issues with Wimba, it will be a
valuable tool once its reliability issues have been
resolved.

29. Analysis
• A majority of both instructors and students reported
high levels of satisfaction with the text chat, voice
chat, whiteboard, and hand-raising features.
• Most instructors reported good and fair levels of
satisfaction regarding application sharing,
polling/quizzing, file sharing, and accessing archives.
A majority of students reported that they did not use
these features.

30. Analysis
• Most instructors and students reported minimal to
moderate levels of technical difficulties with Wimba
Live Classroom, and most of those technical
difficulties regarded the quality of audio.
• Overall, both students and faculty reported high
levels of satisfaction with Wimba Live Classroom,
and both groups believe it enhances the online
classroom environment.

31. Further Research
• Current Survey will involve 17 institutions from:
– Mississipppi
– Tennessee
– Utah
• 15 Community Colleges and 2 Universities
• Current Survey is undergoing the Institutional Review
Board process and will hopefully be administered at the
end of the spring 2009 semester.

32. Contact Information
• Mary Nell McNeese
– Mary.mcneese@usm.edu
• Amy Thornton
– Amy.thornton@usm.edu
• Jalynn Roberts
– Jaylynn.roberts@usm.edu
• Presentation is available at:
– http://instructtech.wordpress.com