E-classroom Videoconferencing in MC

1. E-classroomVideoconferencing in MC Summary report for UCIST 12 September 2008 Presented by Andrea Chappell with contributions by KoorusBookan, Donna Ellis, Professor Paul Marriott

2. Overview • Background of vc installation • What’s installed • Comments on teaching design (from Ellis) • Experiences (from Professor Marriott) • Feedback from students (compiled by Ellis) • What’s next • Recommendations

3. Background (began early 2008) • Paul Marriott (Stats & ActSci) needed larger classroom for increasing # of large classes • Videoconferencing to join MC2065, MC2066 as solution (tiered, 192 seats in each) • Groups involved: • Stats & ActSci – requester • Scheduling – obtaining room for Stats & ActSci courses • CTE – advising on pedagogy, teaching design • ITMS – selecting the technology

4. What’s installed in MC2065/66 • Little flexibility given room design, pre-existing equipment, continued use as typical e-classroom • Standard e-class equipment, data projector in booth at back • VC equipment for the room • Tandberg “codecs”, the main vc components (secured in front storage rooms ) • Two Tandberg HD cameras in each room, one at front to capture students, one in the back booth to capture professor • Existing main screen for “content” (e.g., PPt slides). • Second screen to show prof/blackboard to students in “non-prof” room; in prof room, shows remote students • Second 19” screen on podium to show remote students to prof, or vc controls to the TA

5. Additional support equipment • Capturing the lecture • Tandberg Content Server to capture the slides and video of the lecture, for streaming or for “on demand” viewing later • Scheduling lectures and events; remote admin • Tandberg Management Server to set up vc events, monitor remotely, administer remotely • Both considered now as “required” (need vs want!) infrastructure to support these and future courses • (Note: Need a multimedia server … another project!)

6. Example of captured session http://uw-tcs.uwaterloo.ca Look at July 29th, as example (random!) and move cursor to middle of video.

7. Equipment for pilot • Tandberg “Try and Buy” program • Obtained pilot equipment, for free, from Tandberg. • Having access to and installation of actual equipment intended to fit needs of project is a great benefit. • Installation • Edcom, a local audio visual company known to UW, was asked to install equipment. • Not entirely satisfied with the process and results. • UW Procurement Services will handle solicitation of quotes to purchase the equipment.

8. Teaching Design (Ellis) • CTE observers attended Prof Marriott’s class before and after vc implementation. Recommendations: • Use only one blackboard to limit amount of movement to be captured on camera. • Use large printing on the board and say what is written so students receive visual and audio cues. • Repeat all student questions and comments so students in both rooms can hear them. • Use inclusive pronouns to help engage the remote class. • Look at camera periodically so remote class feels seen. • Handling questions in remote room is challenging!

9. Experiences (Marriott) • Experience very satisfactory; Stats &ActSci will carry on • Recorded lectures reviewed to see if changes required to equip or style. • “Tweaks”: • Lighting: Uses ‘PPt’ style presentation and blackboard. Compromised lighting in order that both equally well seen in second room. Could still be improved. • Sound: Headset captures sound evenly. Dependence on batteries with power enough for a complete lecture! • Movement: Keeping to well-defined area during lecture improves quality of the recorded and transmitted lecture. • Projection: 53” screens replaced with projectors, creating a larger, much better image of prof at blackboard.

10. Student Feedback (Ellis) VC Initial Open-Ended Data Analysis from class on July 24, 2008 What could be done to improve the learning experience in the video-link classroom? • Asking questions – asking them is hard and intimidating, there needs to be a better system (e.g., a TA to interrupt class). • Volume/Audio Quality – sound from professor’s mic not always good; very hard to hear student comments (professor needs to repeat them). • Interaction – find ways for more communication between rooms. • Video/Visual Quality – lighting on professor wasn’t always very good (can’t see his eyes to make “eye contact”); professor can’t see students in the remote room; have camera follow professor; use bigger screens. • Focus – easier to focus in the live room because the professor is there. • Recording – unsure how often recordings might be used – maybe only if they don’t understand the material in class.

11. Student comments Selected highlights from comments: • “In [the] live class, tend to pay more attention since there is a possibility professor may ask you a question.” • “I felt more focused in the other room (video room) because I felt I needed to concentrate more to understand (I still didn’t entirely understand).” • “In the live room I found it difficult when someone in the other room asked a question because I found it difficult to focus on just the voice and understand what is being said.” • “It’d be better if the video room was provided as an ‘extra’ classroom rather than as a method to take more students per classroom per lecture. I feel my tuition is less valuable (like DE).” • “It’s fine, especially for people (like myself) who don’t intend to ask questions.”

12. What’s next • F08 usage: Stats & ActSci Don McLeish and IlhamAkhundov; similar to Marriott’s use, but tablet for slides with mark-up. • Determine “tweaks” and other equipment needed. • E.g., room control system with programming for different scenarios; alternatives for math notation and freehand drawings. • Develop guidelines for use of the rooms for teaching • What expected of instructor and TA, what support available, what instructor training required, limitations or impact on teaching styles, and so on. • Develop guidelines (similar to above) for use for other events. • Determine how to obtain feedback. Track usage and support. Determine impacts of rooms, positive and negative.

13. Breaking news (good, and bad) • For F08, Stats&ActSci grad course, co-taught with Western, to use IST’s MC2009 presentation room, set up with vc equipment in April • Considered a pilot for running a smaller class via vc, not as a permanent “home” in MC2009 • Pharmacy looking at a video-link set up in their new building (may not be IP vc) • Bad news: One HD camera vandalized from MC2066 over the weekend of Sept. 6/7 • Need more than 10 minutes between classes!

14. Recommendations • Proceed to purchase the equipment for MC2065/66. Build into IST budget funds to maintain and roll-over equipment. • Require that professors who use the rooms engage in technology and pedagogy consultations. • Must engage in at least one microteaching consultation with CTE staff to view a taped lecture and debrief on what works well with the lecturer’s delivery style and what could be changed to better fit the technology. • Professors/TAs must attend a technology walk-through and training session with ITMS in advance of the term in which they will teach. • Consider developing distance education (fully online) versions of courses that incorporate limited student interaction. By providing an online offering of these courses, students have an alternative to being in a large class meet (videoconferencing or otherwise). These alternatives may help to alleviate some of the classroom congestion. (This recommendation is intended to align with the UW Online Learning Taskforce proposals.)

15. Questions? Comments?