April 2002 — Features
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Digital Multimedia & Distance Education: Can They Effectively Be Combined?
This feature was actually quite helpful for me to emphasize key points in writing as I spoke to the group. It also allowed me to list critical issues raised during a class discussion, just as one might do on a conventional classroom blackboard. Unfortunately, there was no easy way to share written material prepared in advance except to copy and paste the electronic version of it into the whiteboard.Desktop Videoconferencing
Each distributive learning station includes a small camera on a stand, with a built-in microphone, which is connected to the computer. Videoconferencing capability allows students to see and hear the instructor, or any student who takes control of the system (Sellen 1995). A "talking head" appears on the screen in an adjustable display window that allows face-to-face interaction between participants. The software also gives the instructor control over who appears on screen. A class-roster display indicates which students would like to appear on the system with hand icons, symbolizing the "raised hands" of students who have volunteered to participate. The software can also be reset to allow anyone to take "the floor." Discussions can be held, and participants can get to know one another - significantly enhancing the social dimension of this type of class and providing a more personalized experience than other forms of distance learning. In addition, videotaped material can be conveniently shown to students on this system.
However, there were limitations associated with the videoconferencing system. The signal was compressed, so there was some visual jerkiness and the audio was not in sync with the video. Also, the small cameras could only accommodate a single face, so wide shots were not feasible. Although some videoconferencing systems support multiple video windows on screen simultaneously, this system allowed only one signal to appear at a time, so a visual sense of the class as a group could never really be established. Consequently, there was a kind of invisibility associated with this form of videoconferencing, especially for those students who were reluctant to volunteer comments.
While I could "call on" these shy students by activating their cameras, their sudden appearance on everyone's screen sometimes flustered them, making them even less willing to participate. In addition, there was a two- to three-second delay with each change in speaker on the videoconferencing system as the instructor activated the next camera. This pause made discussions seem a bit lethargic.
The system was also flawed in another way. A delay in signal processing garbled the audio in the classroom when someone was speaking. The comment was heard live, then the same sentence was heard again a few seconds later coming across the system through the headsets. This problem was especially annoying for students in my room who, with the headsets on, heard my voice overlapping itself. But if they removed the headsets, they could not hear other students at the remote sites.
Overall, students generally agreed that videoconferencing was an important, helpful component of the system, especially at the remote sites. But students indicated some degree of self-consciousness about volunteering comments on camera. Class discussions also seemed less spontaneous over this system than in a conventional classroom.
