Making interactivity count: best practices in video conferencing.

Distance education opportunities continue to gain popularity. As postsecondary institutions compete for students, an emphasis on delivering programs and courses effectively through distance technologies is essential to maintain enrollment figures and attract interest in distance learning programs and courses. In order to deliver courses that are effective, educators need to concentrate on factors that contribute to the effectiveness of the delivery method. One such factor involves emphasizing interactivity in distance learning environments. Educators interested in maximizing interactions may inadvertently focus on the quantity of interactions believing that this will contribute to increased interactions with students. However, delivering courses in that manner may leave educators wondering why this approach does not measure up to expectations. This article provides educators with a source of best practices and strategies that accentuate the "quality" of interactions in a video conferencing environment.

**********

With the multitude of technological capabilities available to educators today, the potential to create distance learning environments that emulate the traditional classroom and maximize interactions has become practicable. As learners search for universities that offer distance learning courses, institutions of higher education and instructors are facing increasing pressure to provide educational programs that will increase student enrollment figures and captivate learners' attention.

Universities recognize students' needs for distance learning options, as the development of distance learning courses are on the rise in higher education (Murphy, 1999). "In a recent national survey, researchers found that the public increasingly expects educational opportunities to be available off-campus" (Christenson et. al., 1995). The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), (2000) revealed that enrollments in distance education classes have more than doubled, increasing from 753,640 in 1994-1995 to 1,632,350 in 1997-1998. To remain competitive educational institutions are trying to meet this demand by increasing online and other distance learning course offerings. As the growth continues, the need to create distance learning courses and programs that are effective should not be overlooked. To retain students in the courses and programs, distance learning instructors will need to identify methods and strategies that capitalize upon learner satisfaction (Murphy, 1999). A critical predictor of satisfaction with distance education is the students' perception of overall interaction in the class (Fulford & Zhang, 1993). In an effort to deliver programs that are effective for all learners, the literature has identified a need to understand the implications of interactivity in a distance learning environment and its impact on an individual's learning. Interactions in a distance learning environment that include learner-learner, learner-instructor, learner-content, and learner-interface contribute to the overall effectiveness of the course and the satisfaction of all learners (Zirkin & Sumler, 1995).

Educators developing distance courses may overlook technology's impact on interactions. Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) maintained that learner-interface acts as a "confounding intermediary" in other types of interactions. This article examines the impacts of technology upon interactions in video conferencing, and how it influences learner-learner, learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-interface interactions.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Claims have been made that the level of interaction in a traditional classroom can be duplicated and that students' experiences in the distance environment are similar to experiences in a regular classroom (Simonson 1994; Sorenson & Baylen, 1999). However, distance education has an ever-present obstacle in which the instructor is often not present. This transactional distance can impact the level of interactions in the course and create an "informalization" of the learning environment (Moore, 1993; Burkhart-Kriesel, 1994). This informalization could decrease the overall effectiveness of the course. Distance learning instructors may want to identify various methods and strategies that permit them to maximize interactions and ensure learner satisfaction. Sorenson and Baylen (1999) declared, "By looking at interactivity in the distance environment, educators can identify instructional strategies that are effective and student behaviors to encourage" (p. 4).

The following research questions were presented to identify effective strategies or best practices for consideration in the delivery of video conferencing courses:

1. How does technology impact interactions over time?

2. How does technology impact interactions at host versus remote sites?

3. How does technology impact interactions according to students' perceptions?

METHODS

Population and Demographics 

Participants were members of a Family/Community/Rural Health Systems nursing course delivered through West Virginia University's Interactive Video Network (IViN), broadcasted between Charleston and Morgantown. There were 14 master's level students (12 females and 2 males) enrolled; 8 Morgantown and 6 Charleston participants. The course met for 4 hours, once a week for six weeks in May and June, 2001. Thirteen participants in the study had previously taken a course by way of video conferencing technology and 14 participants indicated that they would take another course that used this technology again.

Instructor Profile

The instructor had been a nursing instructor for 22 years, but had not taught a distance course prior to this semester. She had participated as guest lecturer in other courses that used distance technology. The instructor revealed that she favored face-to-face interaction in her courses and would therefore travel between the two locations.

Procedure

Both quantitative and qualitative measures were employed. Quantitative measures included observations of six interaction categories in five-minute intervals throughout the course and surveys distributed in two intervals. The qualitative measures included reflection forms administered to both the participants and the instructor at the end of three class sessions and interviews of both host and remote site participants and the instructor. A mixed-methods approach was selected to provide multiple perspectives, methods, and measures to support cross-data validity and reliability.

The observations were conducted during 16 hours of class time at host and remote sites. The observation protocol consisted of six interaction categories that were examined and recorded in five-minute intervals throughout the class sessions (i.e., teacher to the class [T-C], teacher to specific student [T-SS], origination site student to teacher [OS-T], remote site student to teacher [RS-T], student to student at the same site [S-SS], student to the class or to student at the other site [S-C].)

The surveys consisted of three sections and were administered to both locations during class sessions two (intervall) and six (interval 2). Survey Section One assessed participants' perceptions of overall interaction, instructor same site-student interaction, instructor different site-student interaction, students same site interaction, and students' different site interaction. Any area with a 20% disagree score was considered an area in need of improvement. Survey Section Two examined the impacts of technology on interaction categories. Section Three required participants to rank interactions according to the degree they felt they were impacted by the technology/delivery method.

Reflection forms distributed to host and remote site participants and the instructor at the end of three class sessions were qualitative in nature and gave participants an opportunity to provide feedback on things that went well during the class sessions, things they liked or learned, recommendations for improving the class, and the impacts of the technology used during the class sessions.

Interviews of two host and two remote site participants were conducted throughout the course. The interview questions pertained to interactivity and the impacts of technology on interactions in a distance learning course and followed an interview guide approach.

   1. How would you describe interactions in this environment?
   2. Based on your above description what contributes to or distracts
      from interactions?
   3. How important do you feel interactions are in a distance learning
      environment? Why?
   4. How do you feel about the use of technology in learning
      environments?
   5. How does the use of technology in this course affect the way you
      interact with the ...
          a. instructor
          b. content
          c. other students

The instructor's interviews were conducted in two intervals. Interval one occurred prior to the first class session and interval two after the last class session. Similarly, the instructor was asked to respond to questions relevant to interactivity and the impact of the technology on interactions. The instructor's interview questions also consisted of instructional techniques and methods in relation to a course delivered at a distance.

RESULTS

The following research questions provide an overview of the findings of this study:

1. How does technology impact interactions over time?

Interactions in this study showed few fluctuations over time. Teacher to the class (T-C) and students to the class or to students at the other site (S-C) were recorded most frequently in observations, while students' perceptions of interactions indicated that student to student at the same site (S-SS) interactions occurred most frequently. Over time it was revealed in participants' responses that interactions with remote site students and interactions with the technology were impacted the most.

2. How does technology impact interactions at host versus remote sites?

Participants agreed that students' different site interactions were greatly impacted by the technology. Interactions were described as "stifled," "artificial," or causing individuals to be "more forward" than normal. Participants also indicated that interactions between remote site students and the instructor occurred more often than with host site students. It is possible that in this environment "forced" interactions occur, which require more effort and attention directed towards remote site students.

3. How does technology impact interactions according to students' perceptions?

Students' perceptions of interactions may not be directly related to the actual time spent on interactions but rather on the quality of the interaction. This quality seemed to make a greater impression as revealed in their responses throughout the study.

Observations versus Surveys

The observations of both host and remote sites indicated that teacher to the class (T-C) interactions occurred most frequently followed by student to the class or to students at the other site (S-C) interactions (Table 1).

Although T-C and S-C were consistently observed more frequently than other interaction categories (i.e., T-SS, OS-T, RS-T, S-SS), participants' surveys demonstrated disagreement with statements associated with interactivity between students at different sites.

SURVEY SECTION 1

Interval two results (Table 2) signify that respondents somewhat disagreed with statements associated with students' different site interaction. Consequently, this category met the 20% criterion which signified it as an area in need of improvement. Surprisingly, participants' reflections revealed that technology contributed to interactions between sites. For instance, participants used descriptions such as, "wonderful interaction between both sites" and "very helpful, interacting, and keeping attention ... different thoughts and ideas coming from different areas."

The observed interactions in the origination and remote site student to teacher categories (OS-T and RS-T) also differed from the findings related to student surveys and instructor interviews. Table 1 shows the OS-T interactions category as occurring more often than RS-T. In surveys, participants agreed that overall instructor different site-student interactions occurred more frequently than instructor same site-student interactions. This was also evident in the instructor interview (interval 2).

Survey Section 2

Participants responded to statements according to the way technology was used in this course and how the technology impacted their interactions with the instructor, other students, and the content. Participants did not agree that the use of technology in this course caused them to:

* miss important information;

* feel isolated from the instructor;

* record lectures on audio or video tape for review;

* feel uneasy communicating with students they have never met or seen;

* have difficulty participating in discussions when no one can see you raise your hand;

* have difficulty paying attention to lectures;

* spend more time studying;

* miss important information because the instructor moved through assignments too quickly; and

* have difficulty relating to other students in this class.

However, participants did disagree that they were able to learn at their own pace and spent less time traveling to and from the campus/course delivery site.

Technical Aspects

In survey section two, participants also rated technical aspects of the telecommunication system used in this course according to: (a) picture quality, (b) audio quality, (c) classroom environment, (d) equipment functionality, and (e) overall technical quality. Overall, participants ranked the technical elements as either average, good, or excellent with little variation from the interval 1 and 2 surveys. Participants reported "technical difficulties" more than any other type of condition when asked about disadvantages associated with this delivery method. Their comments included such things as weather impeding the broadcast, hearing problems, technology interruptions, poor transmission, and participants who were unfamiliar with working the equipment.

Interactions

In survey section three, participants ranked interaction categories (e.g., interactions with remote site students, the technology, the instructor, host site students, and the content) according to the degree they were impacted by the technology, using a Likert-type scale (e.g., 5=most impact, 1=least impact). The two categories that emerged as being impacted the most were interactions with remote students followed by interactions with the technology.

Participant Interviews

Participants reported that the classroom climate/atmosphere was an underlying factor in interactions. Gunawardena's (1995) theory of social presence declared intimacy and immediacy as important factors in a classroom environment. Both elements seemed to be present in this environment. Respondents indicated that the instructor generated an atmosphere "conducive to education" and "conducive to really sharing your feelings." Contributions to interactions were also identified as instructor-related. Respondents stated that having the instructor alternate "back and forth between calling on Charleston and Morgantown," and knowing the instructor is going to "call upon you" were pinpointed as facilitating interactions. The detractions to interactions were recognized as student-related. These included such things as "students having to be reminded to push down the button to speak," and "people are talking and you can't hear what they were saying." When considering the impact of technology on interactions with the instructor, participants remarked that it causes you to be a little more "forward" than you normally would. The participants attributed this to the fact that they knew the instructor would call on them so "I'm going to go ahead and talk before they call on me." Participants also mentioned, "If you really want to be heard you have to make a concentrated effort to be heard" to "get the instructor's attention" because "you can't just hold your hand up, you've got to push your button and make her aware of you in order for you to talk to her." The impact of technology on interactions with the content was described as requiring "technological" expertise since participants were required to use technology that "we are not familiar with" when presenting in front of the class. The participants recognized that an "introductory" overview with the equipment/ technology would have been helpful. The participants also acknowledged the use of technology as a way to "interact" more with the content through the use of PowerPoint, case studies, videos, student presentations, and document displays. The impact of technology on interactions with other students was depicted as occurring more frequently with students at their own sites, whereas they were unable to get to know the other students at the distant sites as well.

Instructor Interviews

The instructor's interviews revealed several impressions related to classroom environment/climate. The instructor preferred face-to-face interaction and traveled to both locations out of a need to foster interactions. The instructor indicated that technology in this course was in some ways positive, but that it "hampers interaction because it cuts down on the spontaneity". She acknowledged that having the students get in front of the class and use the equipment/technology was helpful and a way of "getting a sense of what it is like." She denoted that "it almost pushes you towards a one-on-one interaction."

The instructor passionately declared interactions as "vitally important" and "essential." Therefore, incorporated a variety of technology-oriented instructional techniques (i.e., videos, PowerPoint presentations, document displays, etc.), along with student discussions and presentations to capitalize upon "students' background and expertise." However, the instructor described the interactions in this course as "stifled" and "artificial" and believed that the majority of the interactions were "student-instructor or instructor-student" rather than "student-student." In addition, the instructor stated, "I think that I lectured more," "used less discussion than I would have," and declared that the use of technology in this course impacted interactions in the following ways, "I don't think I interacted as much with the host site," "I think it really hampers the remote site students," and "it hampered all the students in really getting to know me better." The instructor also viewed technology as prohibiting the use of a variety of teaching techniques.

DISCUSSIONS

Upon reflection of the findings, a number of implications for best practice emerged. First, in an effort to involve remote site students interactions can seem forced, consequently a more equalized approach should be explored. It was also apparent that the quality of the interactions had a greater impact on participants' perceptions. Instructors may need to carefully examine the quality of interactions that are planned in distance learning courses in relation to the quantity of interactions.

Interactions with remote site students and with the technology were pinpointed as being impacted the most by the technology and are presented first (Table 3), followed by further recommendations and suggestions for providing quality interactions in video conferencing courses.

Implications for Best Practice, Suggestions, and Effective Strategies

   1. Modify room temperatures or conditions to make the environment
      comfortable.
   2. Establish guidelines for student presenters (i.e., facing audience
      when speaking, use plain paper for document displays, provide
      document dimensions for minimum and maximum sizes for viewing
      purposes, etc.)
   3. Well-lit classrooms can make it easier to see all students at all
      locations.
   4. Provide camera views on a large screened surface at all sites not
      just on a TV.
   5. Onsite technicians (when available) closely monitor camera views
      to ensure proper angles, displays, and so forth.
   6. Distribute handouts before class begins to reduce interruptions
      during class time.
   7. Provide advance technical assistance at remote sites when
      presentations occur.
   8. Use student presentations with a case study focus, applied to
      current practice in the field.
   9. Provide ample clarification and review time during each class
      session.
  10. Use visuals and oral directions along with examples/samples of the
      completed task.
  11. Rotate student discussions by purposefully alternating between
      remote and host site students. Keep track of students who have
      not participated in discussions and attempt to involve them.
  12. Use guest presenters at either site to facilitate interactions.

CONCLUSION

The findings reported in relation to this study consist of master's level participants in a nursing course delivered by way of two-way video conferencing methods at West Virginia University. Participants in this course had taken distance courses delivered by way of this method prior to this course (except for one participant). The instructor of this course had not taught through distance teaching methods prior to this course. Therefore, caution should be used in generalizing the findings to other populations. However, many strategies and implications for best practice emerged which may provide guidance for those interested in developing quality interactions in video conferencing settings.

Table 1 Observed Interactions By Class Session and Overall

Categories                             Session 2  Session 3  Session 4

T-C Teacher-class                         21         28         28
T-SS Teacher-specific student              6          6          7
OS-T Origination site student-teacher      6         16          7
RS-T Remote site student-teacher           5         11          9
S-SS Student-studentat the same site       2          7          0
S-C Student-class or the other site       18         18         13
    Session Totals                        58         86         64

Categories                             Session 5  Overall Totals

T-C Teacher-class                         15           92
T-SS Teacher-specific student              8           27
OS-T Origination site student-teacher      9           38
RS-T Remote site student-teacher           9           34
S-SS Student-studentat the same site       9           18
S-C Student-class or the other site       21           70
    Session Totals                        71

Table 2 Section One- Participant Perceptions of Interactions

Survey Sections                       INTERVAL 1  INTERVAL 2   MEAN

Question 1: Overall, interaction
  between the instructor and the
  students is high.                     5.47       5.71         5.59
Question 2: Overall, there is a high
  level of class interaction between
  students.                             5.38       5.5          5.44
Question 3: In general, the
  instructor is effective in
  motivating students to interact in
  class.                                5.46       5.79         5.625
Question 4: There is generally a
  high level of interaction in this
  class.                                5          5.64         5.32
Overall Interaction                     5.33       5.66         5.495
Question 5: The instructor
  frequently asks questions of the
  students at the instructor's site.    4.62       5.43         5.025
Question 6: The instructor generally
  answers the questions of students
  at the instructor's site.             4.62       5.64         5.13
Question 7: The students at the same
  site as the instructor often ask
  the instructor questions.             4.85       5.43         5.14
Question 8: The students at the same
  site as the instructor generally
  respond to the instructor's
  questions.                            4.92       5.36         5.14
Instructor Same Site- Student
  Interaction                           4.75       5.46         5.105
Question 9: The instructor
  frequently asks questions of the
  students at the remote sites.         5.38       5.36         5.37
Question 10 The instructor
  generally answers the questions of
  the students at the remote sites.     5.46       5.71         5.585
Question 11 The students at the
  remote sites often ask the
  instructor questions.                 4.85       5            4.925
Question 12 The students at the
  remote sites generally respond to
  the instructor's questions.           4.77       5.43         5.1
Instructor Different Site-Student
  Interaction                           5.11       5.38         5.245
Question 13 Students at the same
  site often ask each other
  questions.                            5.53       5.57         5.55
Question 14 There is a high level
  of class interaction between
  students at the same site.            5.85       5.71         5.78
Question 15 Students at the same
  site generally answer each other's
  questions.                            5.77       5.64         5.705
Question 16 Students at the same
  site often state their opinions to
  each other.                           5.62       5.64         5.63
Students Same Site Interaction          5.7        5.64         5.67
Question 17 The students at
  different sites often ask each
  other questions.                      2.69       3.57         3.13
Question 18 There is a high level
  of class interaction between
  students at different sites.          2.62       3.5          3.06
Question 19 Students at different
  sites often state their opinions
  to each other.                        2.85       3.57         3.21
Question 20 Students at different
  sites generally answer each
  other's questions.                    2.77       3.64         3.205
Students Different Site Interaction     2.73       3.57         3.15

1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = somewhat disagree 4 = somewhat
agree 5 = agree 6 = strongly agree NA = not applicable/no basis for
judgment

Table 3 Suggestions For Improving Interactions

Interactions With the Remote Site  Interactions With the Technology
Students

Call on students by name at host   Provide an orientation for students
and remote sites. technology       in regards to
usage.
Organize cooperative pairs         Use a variety of teaching methods
between host and remote sites.     (i.e., videos PowerPoint,
                                   instructor/student presentations,
                                   document displays, etc.).
Pose questions to host and remote  Establish classroom etiquette
site students throughout the       guidelines/expectations the first
lectures.                          class session.
Prearrange interactions across     Gather feedback at the end of every
sites. Provide students with       class session regarding technical
specific questions ahead of time   elements, difficulties, or
and team across sites for          suggestions.
responses.
Arrange for students across sites  Select microphones that are more
to communicate by way of           studentfriendly for presentations
e-mail. They can review each       or on tabletops.
other's assignments and provide
feedback.
Before the semester begins find    Establish guidelines ahead of time
out the students' backgrounds      with the onsite technicians in
and pair them up with each         order to emphasize certain
other for discussions and/or       conditions or needs that must be
tasks                              met during the class sessions.
Handouts should be sent through    Train particular students at host and
e-mail, posted on a course web     remote sites to serve as in-class
site or photocopied ahead of       technicians in case additional
time. Faxed copies could be        assistance is needed during class.
illegible and difficult to read.

References

Burkhart-Kriesel, C.A. (1994). Classroom social interaction: A system of trade-offs. In A. Yakimovicz (Ed.), Distance learning research conference proceedings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 898)

Christenson, J., Dillman, D. Warner, P. I. & Salant, P. (1995). The public view of land grant universities: Results from a national survey. Choices, 3, 37-39.

Fulford, C.P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 8-21.

Gunawardena, C.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.

Hillman, D., Willis, D. & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education. London: Routledge.

Murphy, T. H. (1999). A quantitative analysis of instructor-student verbal interaction in a two-way audio two-way video distance education setting. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(3), 50-60. Retrieved January 12, 1999 from http://aged.tamu.edu/jae/

National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Distance education at postsecondary education institutions: 1994-95 and 1997-98. Retrieved June 23, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/ssbr/pages/distance.asp

Simonson, M. (1994). Two-way interactive distance education: Iowa's star schools project. Educational IRM Quarterly, 3(2), 10-13.

Sorenson, C., & Baylen, D. M. (1999). Interaction in interactive television instruction: Perception versus reality. Paper presented at the 1999 Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada. Retrieved December 22, 1999, from http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~sorenson/presentations/aera99.htm

Zirkin, B. & Sumler, D. (1995). Interactive or non-interactive? That is the question! Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95-112.

CHRISTINE PETERSON 

California University of Pennsylvania, USA

[e-mail]