The document summarizes a study on students' views of using virtual classrooms to support interaction, communication, and relationship development in their courses. The study examined students' perspectives on two virtual classrooms, Adobe Connect Pro and Wimba-Live Classroom, over two semesters. Key findings included that the virtual classrooms helped consolidate relationships but did not establish new ones, and factors like multimedia usability, communication tools, tasks, and technical/logistical issues influenced students' ability to interact and communicate effectively.
Inside the Virtual Classroom: Student views and operational influences
1. Inside the Virtual Classroom:
Student views and operational
influences
DEANZ Conference - April 2012
Garry Falloon and Maria Persson
Thursday, 12 April 2012
2. A two semester, two virtual classroom
study...
What
were
students’
views
of
the
effec4veness
of
the
virtual
classrooms
for
suppor4ng
interac4on,
communica4on
and
rela4onship
development?
What
factors
influenced
students’
ability
to
use
the
virtual
classrooms
for
these
purposes?
Thursday, 12 April 2012
3. What is a virtual classroom?
For
this
study...
“An
online
synchronous
communica4on
system
where
par4cipants
are
able
to
engage
in
virtual
mee4ngs
and
communicate
using
mul4media
services
such
as
streamed
audio
and
video”
(Falloon,
2012,
p.
6)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
4. The Virtual
Classrooms
Adobe
Connect
Pro
Wimba-‐Live
Classroom
(Blackboard
Collaborate)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
5. Research context
•
22
Postgraduate
e-‐Educa4on
students
(2010-‐11)
•
Totally
online
asynchronous
(Moodle)
•
Two
half
year
papers
(PROF522:
2010-‐Adobe;
2011-‐
Wimba-‐Live
Classroom)
•
Assessed
seminars
(analysis
of
affordances
and
limita4ons
of
ODL
for
a
selected
learner
group)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
6. Research method
•
Interpre4ve
case
studies
over
2
years
•
Semi-‐structured
interviews
•
Online
Likert
survey
and
short
response
ques4onnaire
(100%
comple4on)
•
Analysis
of
screen
capture
video
Thursday, 12 April 2012
7. Findings: themes from data
Theme
1.
Virtual
Classroom
influences
on:
•
Learning
community
consolida4on
(rela4onships)
•
Communica4on
and
sharing
knowledge
Thursday, 12 April 2012
8. Findings - theme 1
Consolidated
rather
than
established
rela4onships:
•
visuals
and
audio
helped
‘personalise’
rela4onships
•
nature
of
contact
promoted
responsibility
and
commitment
towards
others
•
helped
lessen
sense
of
distance
(‘feeling
of
home’)
•
viewed
as
an
adjunct
to
asynchronous
systems
Thursday, 12 April 2012
9. “I
feel
that
they
are
not
only
pictures.
I
see
them
as
real
people.
I
can
talk
with
them.
We
talk
not
only
about
the
learning,
we
talk
about
other
things
like
another
par4cipant’s
cat.
I
see
how
they
act.
In
the
last
week,
I
didn’t
write
many
comments
in
Moodle
as
I’m
afraid
I’d
mistake
or
something
(sic),
but
a`er
I’d
finished
that
classroom,
I
went
to
Moodle
and
wrote
two
or
three
comments
including
jokes
from
me
because
I
feel,
‘Oh,
they
are
friendly.
It’s
OK
to
make
mistakes
with
them’”
(Student
B,
August
2010).
Thursday, 12 April 2012
10. Themes from data
Theme
2.
Influences
on
students’
ability
to
interact
and
communicate
in
the
virtual
classrooms
•
Task
•
Mul4media
usability
•
Communica4on
tool
•
Technical/logis4cal
Thursday, 12 April 2012
12. Task influences
•
Seminars
required
significant
offline
prepara4on
in
advance
to
support
interac4on
in
the
virtual
classroom
•
Synchronous
interac4on
in
the
virtual
classroom
affords
limited
reflec4ve
4me
suppor4ve
of
deeper
learning
•
Over
use
could
detract
from
learner
autonomy
(3-‐4
sessions
per
course
@
1.5hrs
max.)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
13. Multimedia-usability influences
Technical
‘know-‐how’
about
mul4media
opera4on
and
capability
affected
students’
op4ons
Thursday, 12 April 2012
14. Multimedia-usability influences
Technical
‘know-‐how’
about
mul4media
opera4on
and
capability
affected
students’
op4ons
Thursday, 12 April 2012
15. Synchronous communication tool
influences
Wimba-‐Live
Classroom’s
single-‐image
video...
“...
was
like
lecturing
into
cyberspace.
It’s
the
first
4me
I’d
experienced
it
(the
virtual
classroom),
and
I
found
it
a
bit
strange
talking
into
the
ether.”
(Student
N,
November
2011)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
16. “
…you
were
just
firing
away
with
your
presenta4on,
but
there
was
a
thought
in
the
back
of
my
head,
can
they
actually
hear
me
–
how
am
I
coming
across?
Not
being
able
to
get
that
instant
feedback,
like
in
a
room
when
you’re
speaking…
you
know
how
to
adjust;
you
can
read
your
audience
beler.
That
was
a
bit
daun4ng…
there
was
just
no
way
of
knowing.
I
wasn’t
sure
I
was
making
that
connec4on...”
(Student
A,
October
2010).
Thursday, 12 April 2012
19. Text
chat
pods
rated
highly
for
sharing
ideas
publicly
and
privately
Use
of
feedback/ques4on/chat
pods
needs
careful
monitoring
Thursday, 12 April 2012
20. Communication tool influences:
operational
“I
kept
signalling,
but
nobody
took
any
no4ce!
Maybe
they
were
concentra4ng
on
Sam’s
presenta4on
or
something…
I
had
a
ques4on
I
wanted
to
ask
her
about
one
of
her
slides,
but
by
the
4me
she’d
finished
the
moment
had
passed,
so
I
didn’t
bother.”
(Student
M,
November
2011).
Thursday, 12 April 2012
21. Guidelines for use of communication
tools should be established
“...
it
caught
my
eye
all
the
4me...
flashing
away
in
the
bolom
corner.
I
wanted
to
see
what
they
were
saying
about
my
work...
it
was
hard
to
concentrate.”
(Student
G,
October
2010)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
22. Technical and logistical influences
•
Hardware
and
so`ware
•
Organisa4on
and
logis4cal
Thursday, 12 April 2012
23. Hardware and software
•
Low
spec
laptops
on
wireless
connec4ons
•
Capped
upload
speeds
(128-‐256k)
on
many
broadband
plans
•
Outdated
player
versions
(Adobe
Flash)
•
Conflicts
with
other
video
applica4ons
(eg:
Skype)
•
Ins4tu4onal
firewalls
(port
access)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
24. Organisational/Logistical
•
Students
opted
to
access
others’
equipment
due
to
performance
and
reliability
concerns
(schools,
public
libraries
etc.)
•
Security
concerns
at
venues
•
Time
zone
issues
for
interna4onal
students
(eg:
Canada,
Sudan,
Korea,
South
Africa)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
25. Conclusions and Implications
•
Synchronous
and
asynchronous
systems
in
ODL
serve
different
but
complementary
func4ons
(social
presence/
community
consolida4on
vs
deeper,
more
reflec4ve
learning)
•
Students
must
be
confident
users
of
tools
and
features
•
Efforts
should
be
made
to
ensure
students
are
not
disadvantaged
due
to
hardware/connec4vity
limita4ons
Thursday, 12 April 2012
26. Implications
Design
and
plan
for
interac2on
•
Establish
guidelines
for
communica4on
tool
use
•
Plan
carefully
for
feedback
opportuni4es
(structure
if
necessary)
•
Overuse
of
synchronous
systems
could
be
counterproduc4ve
•
Remember
implica4ons
for
teachers’
work
•
Consider
system
limita4ons.
Interac4on
‘style’
is
NOT
conversa4onal
(eg:
half-‐duplex
audio,
single
image
video)
Thursday, 12 April 2012
28. Asynchronous Tool Use
•
Prior
set
up
of
course
&
L.O
choice
by
lecturer
(Garry)
encouraged
early
dialogue
•
Personal
&
collegial
connec4ons
were
made
using
forums
before
seminars
•
Peer/Peer
&
Peer/Tutor
feedback
and
support
used
and
unobtrusively
monitored
by
tutor
•
Experimenta4on
encouraged
–
WIMBA
Voice
added
another
dimension
to
communica4on
Thursday, 12 April 2012
31. My virtual classroom experience
•
Presenta4on
mode
primarily
controlled
by
tutor
•
Synchronous
chatng
during
presenta4on
a
distrac4on
•
Presenta4on
was
an
assessed
task
•
Pressure
to
ensure
objec4ves
were
met
•
Pressure
due
to
uncertainty
of
classroom’s
stability
&
lack
of
confidence
using
new
technology
•
Revealed
issues
including
a
sense
of
‘presenter
isola4on’
with
no
audience
to
view
in
Wimba-‐Live
classroom
Thursday, 12 April 2012
34. Support
•
Audience
list
visible
•
Chat
box
accessible
to
view
while
presen4ng
•
Lack
of
body
language
compensated
by
use
of
emo4cons
•
Tutor
presence
assists
in
trouble
shoo4ng,
interac4on,
flow
and
reduces
sense
of
‘isola4on’
Thursday, 12 April 2012