1 / 22

Asy nchronous Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop

Asy nchronous Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop Stacey Sawa and Eric Flower University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu ssawa@hawaii.edu flower@hawaii.edu StreamingVideoOnTheNet.com E-Learn 2006, Waikiki Table of Contents Purpose Streaming video process Methodology

Audrey
Download Presentation

Asy nchronous Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Asynchronous Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop Stacey Sawa and Eric Flower University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu ssawa@hawaii.edu flower@hawaii.edu StreamingVideoOnTheNet.com E-Learn 2006, Waikiki

  2. Table of Contents • Purpose • Streaming video process • Methodology • Results • Methodological Problems • Future Research Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  3. To make some preliminary determination on the effectiveness of asynchronous streaming of classroom-based instruction when compared to the traditional classroom setting Purpose of the Study ? = Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  4. Video Was Delivered Directlyto the Student’s Desktop • We did not broadcast to studios or computer labs where students would have to gather to participate in a site-to-site model—delivery was directly to the student’s desktop at home or in an office Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  5. Streaming Video Process Capture with RealProducer Distribute with RealServer, view with RealPlayer/ RealOne Encode with RealProducer Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  6. Hardware/Production System Videocapture Videotape backup Videomonitor Mixer Audio capture Splitter Audio monitor Encoding PC Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  7. Distribution System Weekly Chat session UH ITS StreamingServer RealPlayer/RealOne Clients Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  8. Equipment Cart Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  9. Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  10. Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  11. Study Design • This study used a quasi-experimental design with students in the face-to-face classroom section as the control group and students in the online asynchronous streaming video section of the course as the treatment group • An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the control and treatment group results Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  12. Hypothesis • It was hypothesized that the results of this study would show no significant difference between the student grades of the control (classroom students) and treatment group (students viewing asynchronous video), or, that the grades of the participants in the treatment group would be significantly higher than those of the control group Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  13. Methodology (1) • Using the streaming video system we designed and built, we taught “Computer Skills for Administrators” during the Spring of 2005 • There were 8 students in the classroom and 10 students viewing asynchronous streaming video of classroom activities • Course is an elective with no pre-requisites offered in the Professional Studies Division Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  14. Methodology (2) • Both groups had the same class presentations, readings, and assignments, wrote the same reports, took the same tests, and worked on similar projects • Both groups could watch the archived class video files that were posted the next day Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  15. Grade Score Components • Testing throughout the semester: 45% • Final exam: 20% • Class participation/Quality circle participation: 10% • Group presentation/Group presentation contribution: 15% • Critical review of Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century by Michio Kaku: 10% Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  16. Exam Mean Scores Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  17. Final Grade Mean Scores Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  18. Independent samples t-test results Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  19. Results • Statistical analysis of the student grades showed no significant difference in four out of the five categories examined • The online students scoring significantly higher in the fifth category (Exam 3) • Low cost narrow bandwidth asynchronous streaming of classroom-based instruction appears to be as effective as the traditional classroom environment in this instance Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  20. Methodological/Data Problems • Groups are not random • Groups are self-selected by enrollment in a classroom or online section • Neighbor Island students have no choice; they must enroll in an online section • Population may not be representative of all college students • Not “blind”; instructor knows who is in each group Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  21. Future Research • More rigorous study and analysis of classroom-based asynchronous streaming video needs to be performed to confirm these preliminary findings = ? Sawa and Flower, “Asynchronous Streaming Video”

  22. Thanks for watching! Stacey Sawa and Eric Flower University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu

More Related