Real Time Global Instruction in
a Virtual Environment
Barb Mann, Assistant Director for Public Services
Julie Arnold Lietzau, Course Manager for UCSP 611
OCLS, April 29, 2010
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
UMUC
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Scenarios
1. Web conferencing for an online course
2. Web conferencing for one-on-one
sessions with doctoral students in
Taiwan
3. Group library instruction sessions for
students and faculty
4. Focus groups with faculty for feedback
on the library Web site
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Literature Review
• Distance education began as correspondence
courses-no real-time interaction
• Move to audio and video communication methodsopportunities for real-time interactions
• Three elements integral to educational process
--cognitive presence
--social presence
--teaching presence
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Literature Review
• “Interaction is at the heart of the learning
experience and is widely cited as a defining
characteristic of successful learning…”
(Baker, 2010, p. 3)
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Literature Review: Benefits
• Anonymity provides a comfort level
(Wu & Marek, 2009)
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Literature Review: Drawbacks
• Technical difficulties
• Budgetary demands
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Web Conferencing for an Online
Course (Scenario 1)
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Background
• UCSP 611, Introduction to Graduate
Library Research Skills
• Piloted in 4 sections and offered in more
than 15 sessions since then (spring
2008)
• Utilized Adobe Connect and Wimba
• 2 live sessions per course
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
“Nuts and Bolts”
• Used to model and reinforce learning for two
major projects
• Specified learning outcomes
• Determine place in the semester/times
• Provided logistical and technical
requirements
• Utilized software features to explain and
demonstrate content
• Archived recording
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Provided logistical and technical requirements
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Demonstrate content
Utilized software features to explain
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Archived recording
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment
• Some sessions were assessed via a survey
using Zoomerang
• Survey link was posted in the LMS classroom
and some instructors e-mailed the link to their
students
• Standard course evaluations reviewed for
comments
• Project comparisons
• Pre- and post-test comparisons
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment
• Final project scores with Wimba
sessions: 91%
• Final project scores without sessions:
86%
• Same instructor for all sessions
• Same grading rubric used for all
sessions
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment
Pre-test/Post-test data analysis (fall 2009)
• Overall final exam performance for
students who had Wimba sessions:
88%
• Overall final exam performance for ALL
students: 87%
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment
Students in Wimba sessions scored higher on the
following exam objectives:
• Formulating a research question
• Selecting the most appropriate source for research
• Evaluating material on the Web
• Recognizing when to cite-Web materials
• Identifying correct citation style
• Identifying correct search statements to locate
needed materials
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
If you participated, what is the primary reason
you did so?
to learn more about library research
64%
17%
to interact with the instructor
3%
I thought it was required
16%
other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment: Other Reasons for
Participating
• “…to make sure I knew what was required for
the project.”
• “…both, to learn more about library research
and to interact with the instructor.”
• “…to become familiar with new technology.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
I hope to attend other real time sessions in
other courses if offered
12%
maybe
2%
no
86%
yes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
The session(s) and/or the recording(s) helped me to better
understand the course materials and content
strongly agree
48%
agree
41%
neutral
5%
disagree
3%
strongly disagree
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment: Positive Feedback
“I strongly feel the online/live discussions
were very helpful. It helps see what the
other students are thinking and
questioning. Plus it gives more details
about the assignment than what is just
listed on paper. I can't emphasize
enough how helpful this was.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment: Positive Feedback
“I think this live chat was excellent because the
instructor responded to everyone's question in a
decent order and I would definitely agree to have
these kind of live chats for all classes since most of
the classes are online. Also, I could ask questions to
problems if my classes were all online instead of
face-to-face. I really appreciate this live chat because
it really helped.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment: Positive Feedback
“Taking a class in an online environment, you do not
necessarily get interaction with your instructor or your
class. This gives everyone a chance to get together,
ask questions, and get some personal/devoted oneon-one time with the instructor. We get the benefit of
learning from the instructor, as well as questions from
other students.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment: Positive Feedback
“I would like to see these become
available for other classes and then
posted, so if you are unable to attend
the live session you can still view it at a
later time.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment: Drawbacks
• “I really don't see any drawbacks to the online
discussion other than the standard challenge of
making free time to attend the live session. This is
sometimes complicated in different time zones when
some people may still be at work.”
• “It requires that computer hardware and internet
connections be in excellent working condition.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Final Comments
• Course content reinforced and placed in
context
• “I appreciated the live session very much. It
helped me to understand the project! Also, it
allows me to go back and review parts that I
struggle with for the project. It is an excellent
way to study because it is convenient and I
just feel like I can study and learn anywhere!”
UCSP 611 student, spring 2010
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Web Conferencing for One-onOne Sessions with Doctoral
Students in Taiwan (Scenario 2)
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Overview
• One-on-one research consultations with 20
first cohort DM Taiwan students
• Research Methods course requiring
development of pre-dissertation research
question and extensive literature review
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
“Nuts and Bolts”
• Determined learning outcomes
• Determined schedule of one-hour time slots for
librarians and allow students to “sign up” for an
hour
• Students e-mailed outline of topics to be covered
ahead of the session
• Provided web-based digital learning materials and
an assignment rubric for students to enhance
learning and as pre-work
• Librarian spent one hour (sometimes longer) going
over research process with student based on their
research topic
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Issues
• Language
• Technology
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment
• Comments on standard course evaluations
• Zoomerang survey for students in the
course
• Debriefings (faculty and librarians)
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment Highlights
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment Highlights
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment Highlights
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Assessment: Anecdotal Comments
Anecdotal comments”
• “It's helpful. Thanks for the considerate
arrangement.”
• “Thanks to my librarian. He has been
very helpful.”
• “The potential to use technology tools in
interactive learning.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Group Library Instruction
Sessions for Students, Faculty
and Staff
(Scenario 3)
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Group Sessions
• Group sessions since 2005
– Hoovers, Business Source Complete,
Academic Search Complete, e-reserves,
NetLibrary, and RefWorks
• Attendance consistently increasing
• Web4M, Adobe Connect, Wimba
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Examples of Student Sessions
•
•
•
•
Business Source Complete
Academic Search Complete
RefWorks
Hoover’s
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Examples of Faculty/Staff
Sessions
•
•
•
•
Hoover’s/ReferenceUSA
RefWorks
NetLibrary
E-reserves
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Positive Feedback: RefWorks
• “I thought the presentation was
excellent. It makes using RefWorks a
lot easier and saves on time.”
• “I found the presentation to be very
useful.”
• “The demonstration cleared up several
questions that I had; Seeing someone
else do it makes a difference.”
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
DM Taiwan
• RefWorks (1st cohort)
• Database Searching/RefWorks (2nd
cohort)
• Determined learning outcomes
• Created content in collaboration with
faculty
• Sent hand-outs
• Worked out technical logistics
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Library Instruction





Wimba sessions as part of library instruction
Fair to high attendance
Positively received
Faculty members attended
Sessions were recorded
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Focus Groups with Faculty for
Feedback on the Library Web Site
(Scenario 4)
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Background
• Re-design of ILS Web site to make it
more user-centered
• Conducted focus groups to obtain
feedback
• Virtual mechanism needed to reach out
to global constituencies
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
“Nuts and Bolts”
• Used Zoomerang to obtain volunteers and UCSP 611
faculty members signed up
• Discussion focused on three main questions and
were asked utilizing Wimba polling feature
• Follow-up questions were notated via PowerPoint
and viewed on Wimba whiteboard
• Chat feature was used as communication method
• Facilitator and note taker used audio function to keep
discussion flowing
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
“Nuts and Bolts”
• Chat transcript and separate polling
transcript were captured
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Conclusions
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Findings Summary
• “…students indicated that they would rather
take an online course that uses synchronous
web conferencing lectures than an online
asynchronous text-based lecture course…”
(Skylar, 2009, p. 82)
• Student and faculty feedback overwhelmingly
positive
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Findings Summary
• Provides greater opportunity for interaction
between faculty and students
• Further research needed to measure the
benefit including empirical findings
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Lessons Learned
•
•
•
•
•
Technical issues
Working with faculty
Language barriers
Time zone differences
Cultural differences
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Questions to be Addressed
• What are the pedagogical expectations of
students?
• How is the impact on student instructional
needs measured?
• How is faculty buy-in obtained, especially as
they are already having to understand the
pedagogy of teaching online as well as
learning how to use the LMS?
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Questions to be Addressed
• Should this technology be required for
some courses?
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Final Quote
• “I am going through your lecture at this time.
Wow! That is really incredible. I can listen to the
lecture at any time that is convenient and/or as
many times as I would need. I like this!”
UCSP 611 student, U. S. Army, stationed in
Baghdad, Iraq
spring 2009
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
Presentation Based On:
Lietzau. J. A., & Mann, B. J. (2009).
Breaking out of the asynchronous box:
Using Web conferencing in distance
learning. Journal of Library &
Information Services in Distance
Learning, 3(3/4), 108-119.
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
References
• Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy
and presence for online student affective learning,
cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators
Online, 7(1), 2-28.
• Barker, B. O., Frisbie, A. G., & Patrick, K. R. (1989).
Broadening the definition of distance education in
light of the new telecommunications technologies.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(1),
20-29. doi:10.1080/08923648909526647
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
References
• De Freitas, S., & Neumann, T. (2009). Pedagogic
strategies supporting the use of Synchronous
Audiographic Conferencing: A review of the literature.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6),
980-998. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00887.x
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000),
Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau
References
• Moore, M. G. (1980). Independent study. In R. D.
Boyd & J. W. Apps (Eds.), Redefining the discipline
of adult education (pp. 16-31). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Skylar, A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous
online text-based lectures and synchronous
interactive Web conferencing lectures. Issues in
Teacher Education, 18(2), 69-84.
© Barb Mann, Julie Arnold Lietzau