Mary Harrsch (mharrsch@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU)
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:37:38 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:37:38 -0800 From: Mary Harrsch <mharrsch@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> Subject: Re: [ifets] Videoconferencing
David, I hope you don't mind me sharing my comments with the rest of the
list. I truly empathized with you after reading the comments about your
first PictureTel experience. To avoid some of the technical problems you
apparently experienced, we always logged into our connecting bridge about 15
minutes before the conference and tested our audio and video. Since we
usually had only one or two participants at each location (7 locations in
all), we were able to use the speakerphone capability of the PictureTel
console and position the participants directly in front of the unit and its
sensitive microphone so rarely experienced audio difficulties. This aspect
also eliminated the need to have a "cameraperson" constantly attempting to
focus and zoom in with the camera which seemed to be another problem in your
setting. I notice your students complained about being unable to really see
the faces of students at the remote site well and I can identify with their
perceptions since I found the arrangement relatively unsuitable for a large
group as I mentioned in my other post.
I really think a more personal approach would be to use individual PC cams
with each student and allow the students to connect from their home PCs. I
have used a Connectix Quick Cam and software that allows up to seven windows
for viewing other participants. Since the camera and microphone are
directly in front of you, your full face is visible and audio is usually
clear. When I am involved in a Quick Cam meeting I quickly forget I am
"talking" to my computer screen and the technology fades into the
background. My main problems have been configuring the audio codecs,
especially when dealing with a crossplatform exchange. The video always
seems to be a snap but the audio can be a problem. Of course several of
your students mentioned the problem of cost to them for modems, AOL accounts
for e-mail exchange, etc. and, although cameras have become a lot cheaper
in recent years, they are still in the $80 - $100 range for even inexpensive
models. Also, several of your students seemed to be practically computer
illiterate and configuring the software, even with instruction could be
problematic.
Typical distance education students, however, would probably expect to have
to have the technology in hand to be able to participate in such a course
and not expect the institution to fund the equipment for them. Typical
tuition does not include providing such equipment so I was a little
surprised at some of the student's attitudes that it should have been
provided because of the distance ed nature of the class.
Also, because e-mail is becoming such an intrinsic part of student-professor
communication here, we have begun assigning e-mail accounts automatically to
students as part of the registration process rather than asking them to take
the initiative to go to the computing center and request an account if
desired. This would have prevented the lag time you suffered before all
students successfully established online communications. I also think this
is a prime example of the importance of integrating computer literacy
coursework into the curriculum - even at the graduate level - at least for
now. Ten years from now (or much less) the technology will be so integrated
into every aspect of our society that computer literacy will be taken for
granted like the skill to use the telephone or a VCR. (Of course it would
help if computers were as reliable as those appliances)
I did have to smile about the student complaints about "too much"
communication. In our environment I frequently deal with over 100 messages
a day so the thought of 10 - 20 messages being termed a "flood" made me
chuckle.
Mary Harrsch
Network and Information Systems Manager
College of Education
102-K Education
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 346-3554
http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~mharrsch/index.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: david wiles <rprtcard@aug.com>
To: Mary Harrsch <mharrsch@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 10:09 AM
Subject: [ifets] Videoconferencing
>Mary-
>your description of the Picture-Tel experience was so accurate it made me
>shudder at the memory of the instructor role during fall l996. I would
>think you would be a special person to review and diagnose the information
>about student and teacher response at
>http://www.albany.edu/~dkw42/eaps760.html
>happy holidays.
>David
>
>
>Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:13:07 -0800
>>From: Mary Harrsch <mharrsch@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
>>Subject: [ifets] Videoconferencing
>>To: ifets@gmd.de
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
>>X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
>>Sender: owner-ifets@omega.gmd.de
>>Reply-To: ifets@gmd.de
>>
>>James Carr wrote:
>>
>>>I have just been asked to take part in the evaluation of the
effectiveness
>>of
>>>video-conferencing business training sessions. The conferences are
>>>due to start this week - does anyone have suggestions for
>>>factors that should be looked out for in the overall evaluation at
>>>this early stage?
>>
>>James, one of the first large scale applications of video conferencing
that
>>I participated in was really quite successful. I was asked to serve on a
>>statewide committee to evaluate and select an SQL query tool to be used
with
>>student information datawarehouses. We met face to face for our first
>>meeting (which required many of the committee members to drive hundreds of
>>miles) and drafted a list of specifications. Then, using AT&T Picturetels
>>which had been donated to each campus, we conducted the rest of our
meetings
>>via videoconference until final demonstrations of candidate software. The
>>Picturetels were equipped with sound sensing equipment so the camera would
>>activate at each location based on who was speaking. To avoid confusion
>>(and incessant camera switching and panning), we appointed a moderator,
then
>>each participant would ask to speak and be recognized before launching
into
>>a discussion. We all kept our stations muted unless we wished to speak to
>>avoid problems with ambient noise as well.
>>
>>We all had copies of the key discussion points which were numbered for
easy
>>reference. In addition, we had a document viewer but it was not as clear
as
>>I would have liked so I thought reliance on handouts was better. I think
>>our experience was particularly successful because we were dealing with
>>relatively structured material and had a specific goal. We were not
>>brainstorming - a more spontaneous exchange that could cause problems with
>>camera management. I also think a group of no more two or three should
>>attempt to group around a single camera. At one location, five people
>>seated around a conference table attempted to use a single camera but
their
>>faces were so distant you couldn't really see their facial reactions.
>>
>>Mary Harrsch
>>Network and Information Systems Manager
>>College of Education
>>102-K Education
>>University of Oregon
>>Eugene, OR 97403
>>(541) 346-3554
>>http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~mharrsch/index.htm
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>Forum website: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/
>>Email address for sending message to everyone on the list ifets@gmd.de
>>Forum's contact person ifets-info@gmd.de
>>Join/Leave Digest or Normal List http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/maillist.html
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/
Email address for sending message to everyone on the list ifets@gmd.de
Forum's contact person ifets-info@gmd.de
Join/Leave Digest or Normal List http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 16 Dec 1998 - 22:05:05 MET