6

Desktop Video Conferencing How to Avoid Teacher and Student Frustration

Paula F. Furr and Ronald G. Ragsdale Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana, USA furrp@nsula. edu

Keywords: distance learning, higher education, tele-teaching, video-conferencing

Abstract As a relatively new delivery medium, desktop video conferencing (DVC) prornises to bring traditional face-to-face teaching to computer screens. Although arnple Iiterature covers incorporating technology into classrooms, little docurnents the experiences and perceptions ofparticipants in DVC courses and DVC's effects on teaching and leaming. A recent ethnographic study that examined incidentalleaming in five DVC courses offered at an American IUliversity found that incidentallearning often overshadowed the planned curriculurn and found a high Ievel of participant frustration. The study's results reaffirmed the importance ofincidentalleaming in a DVC course and of developing an environrnent that reduces faculty and student frustrations.

1. INTRODUCTION

The steady growth of distance education relies on technology, with the International Data Corporation (DESIEN 1999) predicting a $5 billion market for multimedia applications in Internet or intranet training by 2003. Desktop video conferencing (DVC), a new addition to content delivery systems, has been hailed as a 'dynamic, synchronous environment which can give a high degree of interaction between students and instructor' (Mize 1996). The system uses the personal computer with special hardware and software to code and decode audio and video signals, the Internet, and existing telephone infrastructure. From their desks or a classroom, students can interact with a remote instructor by audio, video, and keyboard in a

D. Watson et al. (eds.), Networking the Learner© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

68 Paula F. Furr and Ronald G. Ragsdate

synchronaus environment. Unlike content delivery to large groups of students by compressed video and satellite TV technologies, DVC is considered most appropriate for individual or small-group use (Woodruff and Mosby 1996, Chute et al. 1999). Bivens and Chute (2000) found the use of DVC becoming increasingly important for training and educational applications, as bandwidths increase, technology improves, and costs decline.

However, Green (1999) noted that in the steady evolution of distance learning, technology remains "a black boks" and "the 1argest unknown". Ehrmann (1998) stated, "We sell faculty on the technology and teach the rudiments, but we don't prepare them for problems they might encounter as part of the teaching activity". Although Cuban (1986) noted the "powerful tug that the machine has in capturing student interest", he also noted that computers, like all machines, are subject to problems, from maintenance to logistics to adequate teaching training. Such problems have and can affect student and teacher perceptions of a machine's educational merit and its ultimate widespread adoption.

Ever since McLuhan popularised The medium is the message in the 1960s, that aphorism has been at the vortex of the continuing debate about technology's effects on learning, both anticipated and unanticipated consequences. Technology's non-neutrality has been discussed by many, from Ellul (1964) to Ehrmann (1999), who noted that technologies, whether paper or computer, do not have predetermined outcomes. Ragsdate ( 1988) stated that proponents of computer technology tend to focus on "what they would 1ike to have computers do" and not on what computers cim or cannot do nor on what they should or should not do. However, because "human intentions and media outcomes interact continuously", unanticipated outcomes result. These unplanned side effects, whether good or bad, often supersede original intentions. Postman (1993) stated succinctly, "Unforeseen consequences stand in the way of all those who think they see clearly the direction in which a new technology will take us".

What is known is that teaching students at distant sites is intensive work (Moore 1995), and as Collis (1998) stated: "Good teaching is never easy nor is the handling of new technologies". Consider these demands for a desktop video conferencing class. An instructor must design or redesign and deliver content tailored to the medium; Iisten to students and stimulate and encourage their critical thinking; control class discussion and manage student behaviours among and within remote sites; attend to administrative matters like attendance; and handle the technology and unexpected problems. Nevertheless, expectations remain for faculty to transition seamlessly from lectern to computer console and for students to learn in

Desktop Video Conferencing 69

technology-mediated environments with "no significant differences" (Russell 1997).

Many researchers, including Brown and Wack (1999), Diaz (2000), Phipps and Merisotis (1999) and Saba (1998), have questioned the efficacy of media comparison studies and Clark's (1985) claim that "computers make no more contribution to learning than the truck which delivers groceries to markets contributes to improved nutrition in a community." Lias (1982) contended that each medium biases or distorts the message it carries in significant ways and that new media cause underlying social values to change. Further, Kozma (1994) suggested that any particular technology is not irrelevant, as it may be well or poorly suited to support a particular learning or teaching method. Lockee et al. (1999) proposed that distance education research has largely been biased to show positive results because "stakeholders desire to prove that participants in distance-delivered courses receive the same quality of instruction off-campus as those involved in the 'traditional classroom setting'".

Ehrmann (1998) stated that evaluation policies commonly have been framed to report achievement rather than being "forced to Iook at and talk about failure". Hara and Kling (1999) found potentially critical issues like student frustration a 'taboo topic' because the major body of Iiterature favours distance education and "once consensus is reached, it tends nottobe disturbed by a dissonant ideas". They also attributed the Iack of 'socially realistic' studies about student attitudes to the few qualitative research studies conducted and to the Iack of opportunities for students to express their frustrations. Student frustration is a serious problern in distance education, according to Hara and Kling, because it interferes with pursuing goals (Reber 1985), impedes cognitive and affective learning (Jonassen and Grabowski 1993), and hampers motivation (Jonassen and Grabowski 1993). Motivation strongly influences student learning (Alexander and Murphy 1998, Stage 1996), especially in a distance education, which requires that students be regulated (Abrahamson 1998). Acknowledging that the research of those who extol the virtues of computer-mediated distance education (Yakimovicz and Murphy 1995, Harasim et al. 1996, Barnard 1997) has helped to propel the field forward, Hara and Kling said it is "time to seriously consider the actual experiences among students in distance education and to critically discuss the phenomena of distance education".

Ehrmann (1999) called for changing assessment strategies that emphasize local evaluative studies charged to detect problems in order to improve programs. Similarly, Scriven (1991) suggested goal-free evaluations, which focus on "finding out what the program is actually doing" and not on a program's stated goals and objectives. He wamed, however, that such evaluations are not without risk because "the client may get a nasty shock

70 Paula F. Furr and Ronald G. Ragsdate

when the report comes in". Ragsdate (1997) also favoured a goal-free approach, calling for intensive observations in natural settings to detect side effects. He stated the "main advantage of goal-free evaluation is the removal ofblinders which focusing on the 'intended' results can put on the observer". Other recent notable researchers who have promoted the importance of such 'naturalistic inquiry' include Lincoln and Guba (1985), Patton (1990), Wolcott (1994, 1997), and Bogdan and Biklen (1998).

2. RECENT DVC STUDY AND FINDINGS

Furr (2000) completed an ethnographic study at a mid-sized American university in the rural South that examined and described through thick description the incidental learning activities of students and instructors in DVC classes in a higher education setting. The researcher defined incidental learning as planned, unplanned, and unanticipated leaming outcomes not identified as part of the formal curriculum. The study was limited to observing two of six teacher education courses offered by the university in spring 2000 via DVC to eight remote sites; three other DVC classes were purposefully sampled to triangulate data from observed classes. Each remote site was equipped with 10 computers, and two classes were offered simultaneously.

Of the 113 adult students rauging in age from 19 to 51, 60 volunteered to participate in the study. Twenty-five were undergraduates and 35 were graduate students pursuing a master's degree; 80% (N=48) were fema1e. The five instructors observed were all veterans ofhigher education teaching, with the instructors of the two observed courses having taught pi1ot courses for the university's DVC initiative the previous semester. The other three instructors were novices with the new delivery system, although one bad extensive experience with incorporating technology into the classroom. The university's support staff consisted of three full-time employees and part­time student workers; during spring 2000, the staff supported 59 electronic courses with a student enrolment of 2,012. Of the 13 proctors assigned to monitor courses, nine vo1unteered to participate. Eight of these proctors were also students in the courses they proctored.

The researcher observed 35 DVC class sessions and becarne an observer participant on two occasions as a guest lecturer. The researcher triangulated data by analysing Observations, interviews, student and instructor joumals, e­mail correspondence, class documents, and official documents. The trustworthiness of the investigator was enhanced by prolonged engagement with participants, checks by participants, thick description, and the researcher's reflective joumal entries. By the end of the study, the researcher

Desktop Video Conferencing 71

was considered 'one of the group,' whether that group was faculty, students, or support staff. As a result, cornments were candid and flowing. The resulting more than 800 typed pages of collected field notes provided the researcher with a substantial pool of data from which to render an accurate and plausible account of participants' experiences. Although the study's results can be generalized only to these particular courses, they nonetheless add to the body of research on DVC's effects on teaching and leaming and its potential and limitations as an educational technology.

General findings induded the following. - Technical problems, ranging from audio and video delays of a few

seconds to several minutes to a largely untested system with eight remote sites, led to faculty and student frustration and degraded the overall leaming and teaching experience. One student wrote in a joumal entry: "The problern is the 30 second delay of audio signals. I can see your mouth moving but it takes too long for the sound to come over the head set. Both parties end up speaking at the same time, resulting in poor information flow."

- Although technical problems diminished greatly midway through the semester after the software maker provided needed audio and video 'patches,' negative attitudes and distinct behaviour pattems among students at remote sites were already established and less easily correctable. As one instructor noted: "I don't believe we ever established an on-line dassroom culture. Even at individual sites they didn't seem to bond. I didn't get to know my students, and I wouldn't recognize them if they walked up to my door." One student, a high school math teacher, cornmented: "Being behind this camera is like having a mask on. No one really knows you. It's easy for me to tune out and weed through information I don't need. I can then do other things during dass, so I'm not really wasting my time here."

- The average faculty training time of 4.2 hours on the equipment was woefully inadequate to prepare them to troubleshoot an unfamiliar system while simultaneously delivering complex content and managing the interaction and participation of students at remote sites. Faculty and students both noted the result was lessened academic rigor and quality of instructional delivery. No faculty development on the pedagogy of teaching at a distance and specific applications to DVC was offered. One instructor observed that technicians fail to appreciate the added intensity, focus, and concentration for instructors to deliver the course and for students to receive and process that delivery. He described the results as 'fatigue' and 'going mentally off-line.'

- An overstretched technical support staff could not adequately assist faculty or students before, during, or after dass sessions, compounding

72 Paula F. Furr and Ronald G. Ragsdale

frustrations and overall teaching and learning satisfaction. Instructors noted that without thc presence and reassurance of technical support during class, they feit isolated, and all considered technology problems and Iack of support the greatest barrier to teaching and learning success. Given the nature of this DVC initiative, which was to reach students in economically depressed rural areas, those students without access to a computer or the Internet at their harne or at their work site were more disadvantaged in completing coursework and in improving their technical computer skills. A few 'slow' students literally held learning hostage as an instructor devoted time to their technical questions and problems. On the other band, some students with the most computer knowledge used it to their learning disadvantage by playing araund during class. Throughout the semester, the researcher observed students surfing the Internet, playing games on the computer, sending and reading e-mail, inserting personal CD's to Iisten to music, word-processing documents for other classes or work, coming and Ieaving class at will, napping, chatting with peers, and making rude comments about instructors and students at other sites. No overall administrative system was established for instructors, students, and proctors to exchange materials reliably and predictably. No program was established for students to contact instructors outside of class or via e-mail. These factors contributed to the overall student perception of inadequate feedback. A credible proetaring system for instructor Iiaison, academic integrity, and classroom management did not exist, resulting in a diminished environment for academic quality and allowing negative student behaviour to go unchecked. Because no student evaluations and no student or faculty focus groups or feedback were sought, the university bad no documented evidence for assessment and evaluation to plan and implement program improvements. Smaller classes work best for DVC. Student participation and instructor control declined noticeably when total enrolment for a course exceeded 15 to 20 students. The course rated best for student-teacher interaction and overalllearning bad 14 graduate students and an instructor with more than 20 years' experience in incorporating technology in the classroom. In sum, the semester's learning was frustrated by technology issues and

their consequences. For example, of the 208 student journal entries collected for the semester, 72.5% focused on technology problems. A student submitted this entry during the fourth week of class.

Desktop Video Conferencing 73

''I'm sorry that we didn't make it through the whole class today. Our system shut down on us 5 times. The last time we were unable to reconnect. 1t was very frustrating. The other class bad a speaker hooked up to one computer so that the entire class could hear. They were trying not to overload the system, but in turn we could barely hear what was going on in our class. I teil you, it is definitely frustrating."

Of the 2,520 'chat box' entries students wrote during classes, 48% focused on technology problems. During the last month of the semester, technology-related comments dropped to 25%, a still sizable percentage. During the fifth week of class, student comments included: "we are having serious trouble please help" and "I lost contact for about 20 minutes so I WILL NEED TO CATCH UP."

Of the 35 instructor joumal entries collected during the semester, 80% addressed technology problems encountered while teaching. One wrote: "No video again tonight, only audio. This system is dysfunctional; it's a challenge to teach this way and I'm physically exhausted after class." During 19 exit interviews with student participants, technology was cited most frequently as the barrier to course success. One graduate student who rated her success as a 6 on a scale of 10 said the following.

"I rated my accomplishment Ievel a 6 because there were too many technical glitches, and we bad to spend so much time to make the technology work that it got in the way of leaming. F or example, we spent three classes trying to get one student's presentation to work. In the meantime, the rest of us didn't have much to do. Some students would grade papers and sometimes we could work on other things, so we weren't wasting all the time. I don't think there was enough time to practice the skills, and I think it would be especially hard for someone who had a low computer use Ievel."

Frustrating was the word most frequently used by participants to describe their teaching and learning experiences. Nearly half ( 46%) of the 52 students who answered surveys at the end of the semester and all five instructors rated student-teacher interaction and student participation worse in a DVC course than a face-to-face course with similar content. Still, however, nearly half (48%) said they would take another DVC course because they believed technical glitches would be fixed and they liked the convenience of not driving to campus; 17% said 'no' to another DVC course; 21% were undecided; the remaining percentage of students did not answer, most indicating they were graduating. Ninety percent remained optimistic about the future of distance education in general. As one student said: "lt's a good program, and I don't want to be too critical because I don't want them to get

74 Paula F. Furr and Ronald G. Ragsdate

rid of the classes. lf I can take classes this way or over the Internet, that saves me from driving. Plus, technology is the future."

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Furr (2000) found two types of incidental learning not identified as part of the formal curriculum: learning to use technology and individual and group attitudes and behavioural patterns. Factors that afforded positive experiences and perceptions were convenience and reduced driving time, informal class atmosphere, small classes, prior computer skills, access to a computer and the Internet, internal student traits, and instructor facility with technology and distance education pedagogy. Factors that diminished a positive experience were technical problems, insufficient administrative support, inadequate training, weak proctor system, and negative student behaviours. The study illustrated the importance of developing a learning environment that fosters positive outcomes and highlighted the need for ongoing local evaluative studies to gauge program progress and to monitor participants' experiences and perceptions.

Only two instructors offered courses via DVC the following semester and no courses are being offered for fall 2001. Such a cycle of initial enthusiasm for a new technology followed by unrealised potential and unused equipment need not continue or happen in other settings if those in charge understand that distance education and DVC in particular require extensive training, practice, technical support, and reflection. Local evaluations and longitudinal studies that can document patterns and changes and guide policy decisions are critical for program success and survival.

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, C. E. (1998) Issues in interactive communication in distance education. College Student Journal, 32(1 ), pp. 33-43.

Alexander, P. A. and Murphy, P. K. (1998) The research base for APA's 1eamer-centered psychological principles. In Issues in School Reform: A Sampier of Psychologica/ Perspectives on Learner-Centered Schools, N. Lambert and B. McCombs (eds.), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 33-60.

Bamard, J. (1997) The World Wide Web and higher education: The promise ofvirtual universities and online libraries. Educational Technology, 37 (3), pp. 30-35.

Bivens, H. L. and Chute, A. (2000)Distance learningfotures: Creating new learning environments and developing new pedngogical skills. [www.lucent.com/cedllicdeenv2.html) 5.5.2001.

Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (1998) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (3'd ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Desktop Video Conferencing 75

Brown, G. and Wack, M. (1999 May) The difference frenzy and matehing buckshot with buckshot. The Technology Source. [http://horizon.unc.edu/ts/readingll999-05.asp] 5.5.2001.

Chute, A. G. et al. (1999) The McGraw-Hill Handbook qf Distance Learning. McGraw-Hill, NewYork.

Clark, R. E. (1985) Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses. Educational Communication and Technology, 33 (4), pp. 249-262.

Collis, B. (1998) New didactics for university instruction: Why and how? Computers & Education, 31 (4), pp. 373-393.

Cuban, L. (1986) Teacher.> and Machines: The Classroom Use ofTechnology since 1920. Teachers College Press, New York.

DESIEN Newsletter (1999 October) IT Spending Boom Forecastfor Colleges. [http://uwex.edu:80/disted/desien/1999/9909/ibtext.htrn]6. 10.2000.

Diaz, D. P. (2000 March/April) Carving a new path for distance education research. Horizon. [http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/commentary/2000-03a.asp] 5.5.200 I.

Ehrmann, S. (1998 June) What outcomes assessment misses. Speech delivered at the 1998 AAHE Assessment Conference. [http://www.tltgroup.orglprograms/outcomes.htrnl] 6.15.2000.

Ehrmann, S. (1999 JanuaiY) What do we need to leam about technology use in education? [http:/ /tltgroup.orglresources/fquestions.htrnl] 7.6.2000.

Ellul, J. (1964) The Technological Society. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Furr, P. (2000) The occurrence ofincidentalleaming in higher education desktopvideo

coriferencing cour.>es: An ethnographic study. Ed. D. thesis, Northwestem State University.

Green, K. C. ( 1999 March/ April) When wishes come true: Colleges, and the convergence of access, lifelong leaming, and technology. Change. [http://www.campuscomputing.net/] 5.5.2001.

Hara, N. and Kling, R. ( 1999) Students 'frustrations with a web-based distance education course: A taboo topic in the discourse. Working paper. [http://www .slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp99-0 l.htrnl] 9.8.2000.

Hara, N. and Kling, R. (2000) Students' distress with a web-based distance education course. Article accepted for publication in Information, Communication & Society. [http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI!wpOO-Ol.htrnl]5.7.2001.

Harasim, L. et al. (1996) Learning Networks. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Jonassen, D. H. and Grabowski, B. L. (I993)_Handbook of Individual Dijferences, Learning,

and Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NY. Kozma, R. B. (1994) Willmedia influence leaming? Reframing the debate. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), pp. 7-19. Lias, E. J. (1982) Future Mind. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (I985)Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lockee, B. et al. (1999) No comparison: Distance education finds a new use for 'no

significant difference.' Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (3), pp. 33-42.

Mize, C. D. (1996, November/December) Desktop video communication: A primer. TechTrends, 41 (6), pp. 44-47.

Moore, M. G. ( 1995) Editorial: The death of distance. American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (3). [http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/ajde/ed93.asp]5.5.2001.

Patton, M. C. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed. ). Sage, London.

76 Paula F. Furr and Ronald G. Ragsdate

Phipps, R. A. and Merisotis, J. P. (1999 April) What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Institute for Higher Education Policy. [http://www.smcccd.cc.ca. uslsmcccd/faculty/confer/Hittle l.html) 5.5.2001.

Postman, N. (1993) Technopdy: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. V in tage Books, NewYork.

Ragsdale, R. G. (1988) Permissihle Computing in Education: Values, Assumptions, and Needs. Prager, New York.

Ragsdale, R. G. (1997 March) Surprised by technology: Unanticipated outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. [http://alpha.nsula.edu/-ragsdale/papers.html) 6.4.200.

Reber, A. S. (1985) The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin, Books London. Saba, F. (1998) ls distance education comparable to "traditional education"? Distance

Education Report, sample issue, 3. Scriven, M. (1991) Evaluation Thesaurus. (41h ed.). Sage, London. Stage, F. K. (1996) Setting the context: Psychological theories ofleaming. Journal ofCollege

Student Development, 37 (2), pp. 227-235. Wolcott, H. F. (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and

Interpretation. London: Sage. Wolcott, H. F. (1997) Ethnographieresearch in education. In Complementary Methods for

Research in Education, R. M. Jaeger (ed.), American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, pp. 327-398.

Woodruff, M. and Mosby, J. (1996) Videoconforencing in the classroom & library [http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/vidconf/intro.html)5.5.2001

Yakimovicz, A. D. and Murphy, K. L. (1995) Constructivism and collaboration on the Internet: Case study of a graduale class experience. Computersand Education, 24 (3), pp. 203-209.

BIOGRAPHIES

Paula Furr recently completed her doctorate in educational technology at Northwestem State University in Natchitoches, Louisiana. She is currently an assistant professor of joumalism at NSU and continuing her interest in online education as an extension of communications studies.

Ronald Ragsdale recently retired from educational technology at Northwestem State University. He is also Professor Emeritus at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University ofToronto (OISE/UT).