Transcript Presentation (PPTX)

Web conferencing technology in
online courses: a 10-year
perspective
Robert Zotti
Assistant Dean, WebCampus
Stevens Institute of Technology
[email protected]
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Agenda
• WebCampus at a Glance
• Web Conferencing at Stevens
– The early years (2003-2008)
– The breakout years (2009-2013)
– Another migration (2013 and beyond)
• Perspectives from 10 years of supporting web
conferencing as a component of online graduate
education
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
WebCampus Operations at Stevens
• Began in 2000 with 2 online courses
• By 2011 grew to approximately 130 online classes
delivered each term
– Engineering
– Management
– Computer Science
• Accounts for 2025% of graduate
enrollments
Fall 2013 Enrollment Map
Enrollment Map
Fall 2013 - Tristate Region
• Blue Line Denotes
60-Minute Drive
Zone
• 48% of Enrollments
are outside Blue
Line
This has remained
within +/- 3% since
we began tracking 6
years ago!
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
List of WebCampus Programs
20 Masters Degrees…
Computer Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Computer Science
Network Information Systems
Cybersecurity
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Engineering Management
Service Oriented Computing
Enterprise & Cloud Computing
Software Engineering
Enterprise Project Management
Space Systems
Enterprise Security and Risk Management Stochastic Systems and Optimization
Financial Engineering
Systems Engineering
Information Systems
Systems Security Engineering
Management
Telecommunications Management
…plus 60 related Graduate Certificates
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
700
500
Accounting
Finance
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Project Analytics
Discovering Entrep. Activities
Org Behavior & Design
200
Strategic Management
Marketing
Advanced Project Mgmt
Strategic Project Mgmt
Tech & Inn ovation Mgmt
300
Statistics
400
Project Leadership
600
Project Mgmt
800
MGT/PME609
EM/IPD612 or ME636
MGT 612
SYS/CPE625
SYS 605
MGT 600
EM/PME600 or MGT618
EE/NIS/TM586
EE/NIS/TM584
SYS 611
MGT 620
SYS 650
FE 680
MGT 607
SYS 660
MGT 623
CS 501
MGT 610
MGT 671
SSW 540
MGT 614
MIS750 or NIS631
PME/ME/CHE530 or MGT683
EM/SYS680
EE/NIS/TM583
CS 570
MGT 641
PMEME/CHE535
CS/CPE590
MIS 630
FE 620
MGT 699
MIS760 or NIS632
MGT 611
SSW 565
MIS710 or NIS630
SYS 645
MIS 620
CS 546
MIS 730
FE 630
MGT 689
CPE/NIS654
MGT 680
PME 540
SYS 640
EM 605
MIS/MGT663
CPE/MT/PEP690
FE 621
Top 50 Most-Subscribed WebCampus Classes
Spring 2007 thru Spring 2014
100
0
Web Conferencing at Stevens
Before Web Conferencing…
2000-2003
Interaction in online courses based on discussion posts and email
Worked well initially (online classes still new)
Some instructors looking for richer interaction options
2004
Students begin asking for more interaction with professors, classmates
“I think the Professor should participate in the class discussions more and
provide more guidance to the class” – student feedback
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Student Feedback (2004)
• I must be frank and say that I am very disappointed with
the WebCampus program. There has been no effort to
leverage technology to make this learning experience
more effective such as video on demand, live blackboards,
etc. Are there any plans to upgrade the WebCampus
program to take advantage of the technologies available
today? As Stevens is a technology institution I would
expect that Stevens would be leading in this area; not
behind.
• The course that I am taking now is nothing more than "read
chapters x-x", "do problems x-x" posted on a static web
page. There is little to no interaction with the rest of the
class and the professor.
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Web Conferencing at Stevens
The Early Years
2004
Pilot group (3 instructors, 1 staff member) test 3 web conferencing systems.
Interwise Connect system chosen for implementation
Initial license: 25 concurrent seats
2005
Number of instructors using Interwise: 17
Number of instructors using Interwise for 2 or more classes: 5
2005-2008
Interwise license increased to 50 concurrent users, then 100
Interwise purchased by AT&T
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Early Usage
2004 - 2005
Number of users
Number of real-time events
80
700
608
600
70
500
60
340
288
300
40
35
30
200
119
145
99
20
10
0
0
35 37
31
36 36
16
Oct
-04
100
29
31
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Jan
-05
F eb
-05
Ma
r-0
5
Ap
r- 0
5
Ma
y-0
5
Jun
-05
Jul
-05
Au
g-0
5
Sep
-05
333
60
50
-04
345
353
-04
400
430
Dec
401
63
Nov
441
74
Initial Reaction
Small group of instructors loved it
• “The missing piece” that some needed (Financial Engineering, Telecom
Mgmt)
• Quickly used in a variety of roles
•
•
•
Team assignments
Orientation Week calls
Online open houses
Others interested, but don’t use it
• Time/learning curve concerns
• Real-time events didn’t fit with original notion of online courses
• Real-time events didn’t fit the character of some courses
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
2005 Usage
(Fall term – 90 online courses)
76
80
Number of Sections
70
60
50
40
30
20
14
10
0
Classes using Interwise
Classes NOT using Interwise
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Student Feedback
“I must say that the audio lectures are
amazing. Its like being in class with
you”
“I showed it to a few colleagues of mine and
they were AMAZED. It changed their idea of
what a webcourse should be like”
“I've personally taken two in-class
courses with you, and this web
course (via web conferencing) is
as good as being in class with
you”
“I felt I received all the benefits of
being in a classroom….This is
definitely a good tool”
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
2006 Usage
(Fall term – 107 online courses)
conducted)
100
87
90
80
Classes
70
60
50
40
30
20
20
3
10
0
classes using Interwise
Classes NOT using Interwise
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
oncampus classes using
Interwise
2007 Usage
(Fall term – 139 online courses conducted)
140
123
120
100
80
60
40
20
16
6
0
Online using Interwise
•
Online classes NOT using Interwise
on-campus
Note: Five out of the six online Financial Engineering classes used web conferencing this term
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Problems with Interwise/ATT Connect
• Maintenance blackout periods
– Every Friday from 6PM-9PM
• No auto cut-off for phone bridge users
– The 700-minute phone call
• Not compatible with MAC computers
• Not compatible with Firefox
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Problems with Interwise/ATT Connect
• Lacked a good integration with WebCT
– Extensive manual intervention needed to maintain user directory
• Making recordings could get cumbersome
• Extensive faculty training required
– Slow adoption
• “Concurrent seat” license turned out to be expensive
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
2008 Usage
(Fall Term – 151 online courses conducted)
120
120
103
100
Number of
WebCampus sections
Number of online classes
100
80
60
48
40
20
80
60
40
20
0
Online classes Online classes
using Interwise
NOT using
Interwise
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
0
None
Low
Med
High
Very High
Web Conferencing Usage Level
Fall 2008 Faculty Survey Feedback (n=77)
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
The Breakout Years
2008
Usage of web conferencing on the rise across campus
– Online open houses, staff meetings, special guest lectures
AT&T buys Interwise
The search begins for a new web conferencing system
2009
Stevens evaluates WebEx, Adobe Connect, Wimba, Elluminate, Citrix,
and AT&T
2010-2013
Web conferencing growth continues; application broadly recognized as a
strategic, even if not universally utilized
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
The 2009 Migration:
Evaluation Team Consensus
• Close competition between Wimba and Elluminate
• Adobe probably the most sophisticated but also the most
complex
• WebEx is a robust market leader, but it did not integrate well
with WebCT
• Wimba-Pronto instant messenger application impressed all
those who tested it
• Instructors who piloted Wimba in Summer term classes gave it
high marks for user-friendliness
Stevens implements Wimba Classroom
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
The 2009 Migration: Faculty Feedback
“Two teams in my summer class used Wimba and it helped them a lot.”
- Instructor, MGT671
“Video works better (in Wimba than Interwise); polling is really simple.”
– Instructor, MIS750
“Wimba impressed me with extreme flexibility (breakout rooms,
Pronto…); from a pure user point of view, Wimba would be my
choice. – Instructor, SYS625
“Pronto is a powerful feature. Elluminate has nothing like it.”
– Instructor, SYS650
“The (Wimba) interface seems nice and user friendly. I like the browser
compatibility, too.” - Instructor, MGT609
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
2009 Usage
(Fall Term – 159 online courses conducted)
100
89
90
Number of Sections
80
70
70
60
50
40
30
16
20
10
0
Online courses using Wimba Online courses NOT using
WImba
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
On campus courses using
Wimba
2010 Usage
(Fall Term – 160 online courses conducted)
90
80
80
80
Number of sections
70
60
50
40
30
20
20
10
0
Online courses utilizing Wimba
Online courses NOT utilizing
Wimba
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
On-campus courses utilizing
Wimba
2011 Usage
(Fall Term – 155 online courses conducted)
90
80
76
79
70
Number of Sections
60
50
40
30
15
20
10
0
Courses utilizing Wimba
Courses NOT utilizing Wimba
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
On-campus courses utilizing Wimba
2012 Usage
(Fall Term – 140 online courses conducted)
68
66
66
Number of Sections
64
62
60
59
58
56
54
Online courses using web conferencing
Online courses NOT using web conferencing
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Advantages of Wimba Classroom
• Very good value for the expense
• No maintenance blackout periods
• Phone bridge utilized a local number
– No more runaway costs from 1-800 number
• Compatible with MAC computers, more
browsers and operating systems
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Advantages of Wimba Classroom
• Seamless integration with WebCT
– No more manual intervention needed to maintain user
directory
• Running and recording webinars was simple
– Recordings could be downloaded as MP4s
• Faculty training not as difficult
– Many instructors already used to running webinars
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
The costs of web conferencing
• Three basic vendor pricing models
– Price per concurrent (real-time) seat
• Easiest to understand and manage
• Most expensive, particularly when scaling up
– Price per named host (instructor/moderator)
• More economical than concurrent seat model, particularly when
scaling up
• Capacity planning not as intuitive
– Price package based on enrollment of school
• Simple model based on size of operations
– Similar to TurnItIn license
Notes:
Most vendors use a combination of models;
Some vendors charge many set-up fees
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Problems with Wimba Classroom
• JAVA updates sometimes caused problems
• Browser updates sometimes caused problems
• Vendor support suffered (particularly after acquisition by
Blackboard)
• Downloading recordings was time-consuming
• Does not officially support Google Chrome
• Does not render PowerPoint animations
• Does not share video content well
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Wimba Problem Log (2011-2012)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
2010 – 2013: Leveling Off and 2nd Migration
2010
Blackboard purchases Wimba
– … and Elluminate and Moodle Rooms….
The search begins for a new web conferencing system
2012
Stevens evaluates WebEx, Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate, Jigsaw, Skype,
and AT&T
“Sandbox testing” continues for four months
2013
Stevens announces the decision to migrate to Blackboard Collaborate;
Wimba and Blackboard running concurrently to allow orderly transition
2013 Usage
(Fall Term – 125 online courses conducted)
70
60
66
59
Both: 7
Number of Sections
50
40
Wimba
29
30
20
10
Blackboard
29
0
Online courses using Web Conf
Online courses NOT using WImba
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Questions to Ponder
(HINT: This is the topic of my PhD Project)
• Why do some online course participants embrace the use
of web conferencing technology while others do not?
• What are the drivers and inhibitors of the use of web
conferencing technology at the student, instructor, course,
academic program, and organizational levels?
• How often is web conferencing technology used in different
kinds of online courses?
• How can schools best institutionalize the use of web
conferencing technology?
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
So Who is Using it, Who is Not?
Fall 2013 Snapshot by Program/Department
Department
Fall 2013 online
sections
Sections using
web conf
Pct
Comments
Management
36
28
78%
Consistently high pct
Electrical Engineering
25
0
0%
Systems Engineering
13
13
100%
Consistently low or none
Consistently the highest
pct
Computer Science
1
7
1
8%
88%
8%
Consistently high pct.
Pharmaceutical Mfg
13
8
12
Engineering Management
6
4
67%
Consistently high pct
Software Engineering
5
2
40%
Varies by semester
Other
7
3
43%
Varies by semester
Financial Engineering
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Varies by semester
Varies by semester
Survey Excerpts
• For courses where web conferencing was (and
for those where it was not….)
– Questions for Instructors
– Questions for Students
• Questions for IT/Online Learning
Administration
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Survey Questions
Generic data – all classes
Instructor Survey
Student Survey
How many classes have you taught
online previously
How many classes have you taken
online previously?
What class did you teach online last
term?
What class did you take online last
term?
Have you ever used web
conferencing in your online course?
Have you ever used web
conferencing in your online course?
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Survey Questions
for classes which used web conferencing
Instructor Questions
Student Questions
How many web conferencing events
per semester do you conduct?
The interaction between students is
a major part of the course.
I was able to communicate with my
students effectively using web
conferencing applications.
It was easier to answer questions
using web conferencing than with
discussion boards.
I would recommend the use the web
conferencing tools in other classes.
What % of web conferencing events
do you attend in your class?
I enjoy interacting with my online
classmates.
I was able to communicate with my
instructor effectively using web
conferencing applications
It was easier to ask questions using
web conferencing than with
discussion boards.
I would recommend the use the web
conferencing tools in other classes.
…
(Note: Items on a 5-point Likert Scale (5=Strongly Agree… 1=Strongly Disagree)
© 2014 by Robert Zotti
Survey Questions
for classes which did NOT use web conferencing
Instructor Question
Student Question
Have you ever used web conferencing in
Have you ever used web conferencing in
your online course?
your online course?
The use of web conferencing tools is not
The use of web conferencing tools is not
suited to the class I teach online.
suited to the class I took online.
I am satisfied with teaching methods that do I am satisfied with online classes that do
NOT include real-time web conferencing
NOT include real-time web conferencing
events.
events.
I have limited time available for learning
I have limited time available for learning web
web conferencing applications.
conferencing applications.
My schedule makes it difficult to conduct
My schedule makes it difficult to attend realreal-time web conferencing events.
time web conferencing events.
I was able to communicate with my students I was able to communicate with my
effectively without using web conferencing
instructor effectively without using real-time
applications.
web conferencing applications.
It was easier to interact with students using It was easier to interact with the instructor
discussion boards than it would have been using discussion boards than it would have
using web conferencing.
…been using web conferencing.
(Note: Items on a 5-point Likert Scale (5=Strongly Agree… 1=Strongly Disagree)
Interaction Alignment Model
• How many opportunities do online students have to interact in realtime?
– More than needed?
– Less than needed?
– Just right?
© 2014 by Robert Zotti