The Value of Using Synchronous Conferencing for Instruction and Students

This study examined the effectiveness of video and audio conferencing in hybrid classes. Using both quantitative and qualitative data, the technical difficulty, instructional quality, attention and distraction of location were compared. The results revealed that both conferencing types made positive impacts on instruction. However, there were significant differences between those conferencing in the perception of the technical and instructional quality. The differences were attributed to technical difficulties in the video conferencing session, but the one-to-one video conferencing not having technical problems provided similar impact on instruction to the audio conferencing. In addition to the various comparisons, this research suggests critical factors to implement successful instruction with synchronous conferencing tools. Acknowledgement: This work was sponsored by a Technology Access Fee (TAF) grant and research conducted through the Advanced Learning Center at the University of Memphis. Introduction In technology-enhanced learning environments, learners‟ expectations toward e-learning have been growing toward on-demand, anytime/anywhere and high-quality instruction (Ely, 2003; Khan, 2005). In order to fulfill these demands, e-learning should be well-designed to provide learner-centered, engaging, affordable, flexible, meaningful, and facilitated learning environments (Khan, 2005). The advancement of technologies makes it possible for distant learners to access more effective and inexpensive instruction (MacIntosh, 2001). For example, the stability, usability, and affordability of recent technologies provide learners with richer media and support (Coventry, 1994; Smyth, 2005). One of the rapidly growing instructional media in distance learning is audio and video conferencing, which has potential for new methods of interaction among instructors and students (Anderson, 1996; Chan, Tan, & Tan, 2000). Conferencing tools simulating face-to-face learning purport to enhance communication, collaboration, and social presence (Pittman, 2003; Townsend, Demarie, & Hendrickson, 2001; Wilkinson & Hemby, 2000). However, the promise of these tools has emphasized efficiency and not necessarily effectiveness. Despite the possibilities for application, the research results with virtual conferencing have been contradictory. For example, learning outcomes via synchronous conferencing were no better and no worse than traditional face-to-face classroom (e.g., Alexander, Higgison, & Mogey, 1999; Greenburg, 2004; Knipe & Lee, 2002), while students valued the virtual conferencing and interaction was increased (e.g., MacIntosh, 2001; Townsend et al., 2001). While most research has focused on virtual conferencing in completely online courses, few studies have examined hybrid, or blended classes, where face-to-face class meetings are combined with online conferencing (c.f., El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007; Motteram, 2006; Teng & Taveras, 2004-2005). Journal of Interactive Online Learning Grant and Cheon 212 Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to examine how synchronous conferencing technology affects teaching and learning. Based on the purpose, this study explored the factors bearing on the success and failure of synchronous conferencing in hybrid classes in higher education. Accordingly, the evaluation will allow greater knowledge for how to appropriately integrate technologies into the class. The research questions were: What is the value to instruction and students of using synchronous conferencing? Is video necessary for synchronous conferencing? Do technical problems prevent synchronous conferencing from being effective for instruction? Do distractions prevent synchronous conferencing from being effective for instruction? An Overview of Synchronous Conferencing There are two types of virtual conferencing: asynchronous conferencing and synchronous conferencing. Asynchronous conferencing is both time and location independent (Greenberg, 2004; Wilkinson & Hemby, 2000). It provides learners with flexibility of accessing large amounts of learning materials. In addition, collaboration and feedback can be implemented by email or discussion board. In contrast, synchronous conferencing makes distance among instructor and learners variable, but time is still crucial (Coventry, 1994). Synchronous conferencing can support spontaneous interaction and immediate feedback involving audio and text, as well as video (Pittman, 2003; Wilkinson & Hemby, 2000). Video conferencing participants are able to see and hear each other and to share information by means of different types of visual aids. The first video conferencing system, PicturePhone, was implemented by AT&T in the mid 1960s (Pittman, 2003). Video conferencing tools have evolved with innovations in telecommunication technologies such as Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) and compressed video data transmission. Now Internet Protocol (IP)-based two-way video conferencing is available for distance education. Classifications of synchronous conferencing vary. According to media used in synchronous conferencing, there are audio conferencing (audio only) and video conferencing (voice and picture). Another classification can be found based on the number of access points: point-to-point and multi-point conferencing (Pittman, 2003). In point-to-point conferencing, there are only two computers connected—one on each end. In multi-point conferencing, two or more computers can be connected with one another. In addition, there is another classification: room systems, rollabout carts, and desktop videoconferencing used in distance education and virtual conferences (Carvalhoh, 2000). The room systems typically are room-equipped stationary designs with multiple cameras, microphones, and a mixer for clear capture of audio and video. The rollabout system is a midrange system that is easily rolled on a cart from room to room. The cart usually includes a single display device, audio and video equipments, and a computer. The quality of video and audio is higher than a desktop system. Furthermore, the functionality of rollabout systems has been increased as the cost has fallen. Desktop systems enable interactions with other people with a compact camera and microphone. The increasing bandwidth speed and improving software functionality make the desktop systems possible to be used in real distance education. For example, recent video conferencing systems support an interactive whiteboard application sharing and collaboration tools. These three systems can be used in either point-to-point or multiJournal of Interactive Online Learning Grant and Cheon 213 point conferencing. Video conferencing has played important roles in various areas (Carvalhoh, 2000). In telemedicine, urgent expert diagnostics and other medical information can be transmitted to remote areas via the video conferencing. In business, many companies rely on this technology to train employees and communicate with other sites. Furthermore, the technology makes open flexible learning environments with globalization. Review of Previous Research Much research offers promise for using synchronous conferencing in distance education. For example, after investigating various types of video conferencing cases, Alexander et al. (1999) stated, “There was little difference between video conference lectures and traditional lectures, and students would not mind having more video conference lectures” (p.14). Jennings and Bronack (2001) used desktop video conferencing as a means of synchronous communication between instructional designers and intern teachers. Jennings and Bronack‟s study revealed that the goal to stimulate participants‟ consideration of multiple points of view and contemplation of appropriate courses of action was met. The participants valued the authentic environments that fostered collaboration. Another positive result was that video conferencing in distance learning classes for the nursing program increased students‟ interaction and engaged the students in the instruction (MacIntosh, 2001). Meanwhile, regarding participants‟ attitude toward video conferencing, those participants who anticipated the technology in a positive manner were more likely to evaluate it positively and perform well during the conferencing (Townsend et al., 2001). Similarly, Patillo‟s (2007) participants found synchronous audio conferencing to increase the communications between instructor and students. On the other hand, negative results have also been reported. Using video conferencing technology, Freeman (1998) found learning activities and interaction were not improved in multi-campus large classes. In this case, time was lost through technical difficulties, and the distractions at the remote site inhibited student engagement in the instruction. In addition, Knipe and Lee (2002) compared the learning experiences of remote site students to local site students in graduate level classes. The qualitative study showed that remote students did not experience the same quality of teaching and learning as local site students. The local site students had more opportunities to learn how to deal with other viewpoints, how to be critical themselves, and how to make decisions by joining different groups. Advantages and Disadvantages Much of the literature suggests that the synchronous conferencing tool is cost-effective as well as affords meaningful communication. All literatures, however, indicated that interactivity is the key of synchronous conferencing (Greenberg, 2004). The advantages of using synchronous conferencing include: It can be used as collaboration tools for team works or team teaching (Alexander et al., 1999; Coventry, 1994; Townsend et al., 2001). It can provide active supports such as prompt feedback (Alexander et al., 1999; Chan et al., 2000; Pittman, 2003). It can make it possible for distant people to access expertise or specialists (Alexander et al., 1999; Pittman, 2003). It can save travel time and cost (Chan et al., 2000; Coventry, 1994; Wilkinson & Hemby, 2000). Journal of Interactive Online Learning Grant and Cheon 214 It can increase interactive communication with engaging discussion and enhancing social presence (Chan et al., 2000; Coventry, 1994; Pittman, 2003; Smyth, 2005). In contrast, challenges to using synchronous conferencing include: Technical difficulties, such as time delay (Freeman, 1998; Pittman, 2003) Low quality of audio and video (Wilkinson & Hemby, 2000) Lack of training for utilizing new tools (MacIntosh, 2001; Pittman, 2003) Distractions and lack of real interaction (Freeman, 1998; Knipe & Lee, 2002) Interestingly, studies suggested that virtual interaction was still not enough to replace face-to-face interaction. For example, participants felt professional isolation and a lack of human connection (Wilkinson & Hemby, 2000). In addition, it was difficult to know when to interrupt to ask questions (MacIntosh, 2001). As described previously, participation in discussions decreased in a remote site compared to the local site classrooms. The results of studies about effectiveness of video conferencing revealed that students had positive perception toward the video conferencing; however, it could not serve as a direct replacement for face-to-face class (e.g., Alexander et al., 1999; Wilkinson & Hemby, 2000). With these challenges, studies also suggested some critical factors for successful implementation of synchronous conferencing. Critical Factors Based on previous research, there are four critical factors to consider when implementing synchronous conferencing: (a) the quality of video and audio, (b) training time, (c) teaching strategies, and (d) opportunities for face-to-face meeting. The first factor is related to technical issues. As mentioned in the previous section, the quality of audio and video is a fundamental factor. Although video offers visual aids, audio is still essential for conferencing (Jennings & Bronack, 2001). In audio-only interaction, the lack of visual is compensated for by clearer enunciation and more thoughtful communication (Coventry, 1994). Higher video quality requires higher speeds of bandwidth and more robust computer processors. It is also necessary to consider the equipment, as well as to prepare alternative ways for expected data traffic. Training time to be familiar with conferencing systems was also suggested as a critical factor (e.g., Chan et al., 2000; Reinhart & Schneider, 2001; Townsend et al., 2001). The new technology is attractive for both instructors and learners, but it also requires them to be proficient in the technology. A simple exercise at the beginning of the course can provide learners with positive experience and increase self-efficacy in order to develop their own personal styles of interaction (Chan et al., 2000; Reinhart & Schneider, 2001). Furthermore, educators should be comfortable with the technology so they can adapt the instruction to the class objectives and learners‟ demands. The third factor is teaching strategies for effective instruction. Technology alone is unable to ensure a meaningful learning experience (Coventry, 1994; MacIntosh, 2001). The success of instruction is more dependent on teaching methods rather than the technology. New approaches to instruction must accompany new technologies, adjusting to the changing teacher‟s role, motivating learners, and preparing learning materials to fit the synchronous conferencing. The last suggestion is that a face-to-face meeting is a good opportunity for learners to make social connections. MacIntosh‟s (2001) learners indicated that an on-site visit by the instructor was extremely valuable in establishing a relationship that could then be continued via video conferencing. It implies that the video conferencing in hybrid classes will be more Journal of Interactive Online Learning Grant and Cheon 215 effective than distance only classes. However, we struggled to locate any recent studies that examined synchronous conferencing in hybrid classes, where students have expectations for face-to-face instruction. Instead, the most recent research has examined synchronous conferencing, where text chat and instant messaging were used, or hybrid courses, where asynchronous discussion forums were employed (c.f., Anderson et al., 2006; Baggaley & Klaas, 2006; DeNeui & Dodge, 2006; El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007; Motteram, 2006; Tremblay, 2006). Methodology This study followed an evaluation methodology. The instructor wanted to critically examine the potential of both audio and video conferencing for use with students in higher education. As a result of the significant technology resources required to use synchronous conferencing (i.e., higher bandwidths, faster computer processors, specific equipment), the instructor felt this investigation moved beyond a simple media comparison study. Participants and Courses The participants for the study were graduate students in Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) program at the University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. The students in two IDT classes using synchronous conferencing evaluated their use of technology after each conferencing session. There were two groups of participants. One group used video conferencing exclusively, and the other group used only audio conferencing. Approximately 11 students in one class were in the video conferencing group. The audio conferencing group consisted of approximately eight students. The course that used video conferencing exclusively was organized into a weekend format. The course met four weekends (a Friday evening and all-day Saturday) during the semester. The video conferencing was used to replace the whole class, on-campus Friday evening meeting. The whole class conferencing typically lasted 1 1⁄2 to 2 hours. Video conferencing was also used to supplement the regular course meetings with one-on-one sessions to mentor, scaffold, and check course progress with individual students. The course that used audio conferencing was a 5-week summer session course. The course met twice per week for approximately 1 1⁄2 to 2 hours. Audio conferencing was used almost half the time, where each week one course meeting was on campus and the other class meeting was online with audio conferencing. Procedures Two hybrid classes used one of two types of online conferencing tools: One class used video conferencing in Spring 2005, and the other class used audio conferencing in Summer 2005. The instructor in the classes was the same. The participants used synchronous conferencing four or five times throughout the semester. The type of both video and audio conferencing was desktop conferencing. Video conferencing. Video conferencing began in Fall 2004 with Polycom ViaVideoII units and an H.323 conferencing bridge hosted by the university. ViaVideoII units were purchased for students by the instructor as part of an internal instructional improvement grant. The cameras were for use at off-campus sites, such as home or office. The conferencing system was inadequate. Of 13 students who participated, only 2 were able to connect because of incompatibilities with remote systems. For example, a number of local Internet Service Providers had blocked the ports for H.323 video conferencing, presumably to prevent the large bandwidth traffic. Multiple attempts to troubleshoot technical issues were made. In addition the system was Journal of Interactive Online Learning Grant and Cheon 216 only compatible with Windows-platform computers. Due to the inconsistent connections and poor overall results, the ViaVideo II units were abandoned and no data were collected. After seeking an economical and cross-platform solution for video conferencing, iVisit (http://www.ivisit.com) was chosen for class sessions in the spring semester of 2005. The iVisit system worked with a variety of inexpensive Internet video cameras (web cams) with crossplatform compatibility. Given the flexibility in video camera, new camera units and the subscription rate for iVisit were purchased. Logitech QuickCams were used for students using Windows-platform computers, while Apple iSights were chosen for Macintosh computers. Students took the web cameras to their homes and participated four video conferencing: two sets of one-on-one sessions and two sets of whole class sessions. The iVisit system worked similarly to a chat room, where participants logged into a common system. As each person joined the video conferencing session, a postage stamp video stream was added to the screen. The students and instructor referred to this as the “Brady Bunch effect.” In addition to audio and video, text chat was available. A job aid was created for students to follow in order to download the client software, log in to the site and manage the iVisit interface. Audio conferencing. For audio conferencing, Horizon Wimba Direct Powerlink for WebCT was used in the summer semester in 2005. Each participant used his or her own microphone and speakers. Students followed a diagnostic tutorial to download any additional software plug-ins or drivers in order to use the system. Unlike the video conferencing system, the audio conferencing was not full duplex (i.e., where participants can talk over one another). Only one conference participant could speak at a time, and “the floor” had to be released before another participant could speak. Text chat was also available with the audio conferencing. In both classes, students were asked to visit a webpage and complete an evaluation form after each conference. An overall evaluation was given to students at the end of the conferencing. Data Collection The data source was an online evaluation questionnaire. The questionnaire was comprised of five sections: technical quality, instructional quality, attention, distraction of location, and comments. The evaluation questions for both conferencing were similar but some questions were different depending on the conferencing method. For example, the questions for video quality, video size, and feeling as being live were added to the technical quality section for the video conferencing group. On the other hand, the students using audio conferencing were asked to answer the question, “Would video have improved the instructional quality?” The four sections used five-point Likert scales moving from strongly disagree to strongly agree, while the comments section was open-ended questions in order to gather diverse ideas and thoughts. Students completed anonymous evaluations after each session. There were 49 data entries for video conferencing and 36 data entries for audio conferencing even though 11 students participated in the video conferencing and 8 students participated in the audio conferencing. The questions in each section were developed based on the study of Kies, Williges, and Rosson (1997). All responses and comments were accumulated in a secure database. Data Analysis Data analysis for this study proceeded through a quantitative as well as qualitative research method. The preliminary test indicated that the reliabilities of questions in the technical quality (Cronbach‟s Alpha = .782) and instructional quality (Cronbach‟s Alpha = .855) were appropriate to be used as a construct. In addition to the two constructs, two individual questions Journal of Interactive Online Learning Grant and Cheon 217 for attention and distraction of location were added to the dependant variables. Since we were interested in comparing two types of synchronous conferencing on four dependent variables simultaneously, a two-group Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to test our hypothesis. Multivariate analysis of variance is used when there is more than one dependent variable, taking correlations among variables into account and keeping the overall level under control (Stephens, 2002). If the overall multivariate test is significant in MANOVA, the specific dependent variables that contribute to the overall effect can be identified by the univariate F tests. By the statistical analysis, we found which type of conferencing had more positive effects and which category impacted instructional quality. Meanwhile, the open-ended comments were coded and classified following a content analysis approach. Results The quantitative and qualitative results of this study are organized by the four research questions. These are presented below. What is the Value to Instruction and Students of Using Synchronous Conferencing? As shown in Table 1, both quantitative and qualitative data from open-ended questions showed that the participants had positive perceptions in using synchronous conferencing, but technical difficulties were still the largest barrier to both types of synchronous conferencing. In addition, the students offered several suggestions to improve instruction. Table 1: Means and Standard deviation for two types of virtual conferencing Criteria Question summary Video Conferencing Audio Conferencing