Eric Flower and Stacey Sawa University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu

1. “Low Cost Narrow Bandwidth Synchronous Streaming Video From the Classroom tothe Remote Student’s Desktop” Eric Flower and Stacey Sawa University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu flower@hawaii.edu ssawa@hawaii.edu StreamingVideoOnTheNet.com NMC 2005, Honolulu

2. Our Local Problem Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

3. Our Global Problem Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

4. Table of Contents • Introduction/Purpose: Slides 5 – 11 • System Design: Slides 12 – 18 • Methodology: Slides 19 – 22 • Results: Slides 23 – 31 • Methodological Problems: Slides 32 – 33 • Classroom Management: Slides 34 – 36 • Secondary Observations: Slides 37 – 43 • Future Research: Slides 44 – 46 Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

5. Internet Streaming • An Internet data transfer technique that allows the user to see and hear audio and video files without lengthy download times; the host or source “streams” small packets of information over the Internet to the user, who can access the content as it is received • See sample video and a discussion of our project at: http://socrates.uhwo.hawaii.edu/BusAd/Flower/video/uhthisweekcredits.html Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

6. 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 Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

7. Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

8. Purpose of the Study: 1 • To identify levels of preparation and support (equipment, software, staffing, training, facilities, infrastructure, etc.) necessary to produce and distribute good quality narrow bandwidth (384Kbps or less) streaming video to students in their home or at their offices Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

9. Purpose of the Study: 2 • To see if we could design a low cost Internet streaming video system without a large capital equipment investment, heavy infrastructure requirements, or a large technical support staff Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

10. Purpose of the Study: 3 • To see if we could design a “system on a cart” to make it portable • To see if classes could be broadcast from any campus classroom or conference room and not be tied to a studio, lab, or other special purpose facility Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

11. To make some preliminary determination on the effectiveness of synchronous streaming of classroom-based instruction when compared to the traditional classroom setting Purpose of the Study: 4 Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

12. Streaming Video Process Capture with RealProducer Distribute with RealServer, view with RealPlayer/ RealOne Encode with RealProducer Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

13. Software We Used • We used apps from RealNetworks.comto encode and serve our classroom-based streaming video • RealProducer to capture and encode video • RealServer to distribute the video • RealPlayer and RealOne Player to view streaming video Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

14. Video Encoding Rates RealProducer can encode streaming video files in any combination of the following rates:ConnectionEncoding RateDelivery Rate Dial-up 56Kbps 34Kbps Single ISDN 64Kbps 50Kbps Dual ISDN 128Kbps 100Kbps LAN/DSL/Cable 150Kbps 150Kbps LAN/DSL/Cable 256Kbps 225Kbps LAN/DSL/Cable 384Kbps 350Kbps LAN/DSL/Cable 512Kbps 450Kbps LAN/DSL/Cable 768Kbps 700Kbps Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

15. Hardware/Production System Videocapture Videotape backup Videomonitor Mixer Audio capture Splitter Audio monitor Encoding PC Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

16. Distribution System Chat session UH ITS StreamingServer RealPlayer/RealOne Clients Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

17. Equipment Cart Click here to see our equipment list Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

18. Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

19. Methodology 1 • Using the streaming video system we designed and built, we taught four semesters of “Computer Skills for Administrators” with some students in the classroom and other students at home or in their offices participating synchronously • Course is an elective with no pre-requisites offered in the Professional Studies Division Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

20. Methodology 2 • We taught the class four times between 2001 and 2004 • Over that period, there were 41 students in the classroom and 29 online • Each semester, both groups had the same class presentations, readings, and assignments, wrote the same reports, took the same tests, and worked on similar projects Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

21. Methodology 3 • Both groups could watch the archived class video files • In a retrospective study, we compared student course grade scores for each group (in-class vs. remote) • Used a t-test for unequal variances • Ho:u1 = u2(Null hypothesis: means of the two groups are equal) • Ha:u1 <> u2(Alternative hypothesis: means of the two groups are not equal) Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

22. 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% Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

23. Results 1 • We found that off-the-shelf hardware and software were adequate to produce good quality narrow bandwidth (384Kbps or less) streaming video • Significant investments in broadcast studios may not be necessary where high production values are not an essential part of the instructional process Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

24. Encoding Rates and File Size • Triple stream video files encoded at 56Kbps, 150Kbps, and 256Kbps use 3.9 megabytes of storage per minute • Stream to the viewer at the highest reliable connection, typically 34, 150, or 225Kbps • This multistream provides a good balance of sound and picture quality and targets dial-up, LANs, and broadband • In 2004 we upped the top rate to 384 Kbps encoded and 350Kbps received Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

25. Connections: LAN/Broadband • Local Area Network (LAN) and broadband connections (cable, DSL) are clearly better • Video encoded at 256Kbps is received at 225Kbps • Video encoded at 384Kbps is received at 350Kbps • Sound and video are both good • Acceptable for motion, detail, and close-up work Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

26. Connections: 56K Dial-up 1 • Streaming video encoded for 56Kbps dial-up modems is received at 34Kbps • Sound is good • Picture is not nearly as good as higher speed streams • Video is choppy and there may be frequent rebuffering if there is network congestion • More like a slide show than a motion picture Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

27. Connections: 56K Dial-up 2 • May not be acceptable for classes or demos involving motion, detail, or close-up work • May be acceptable for discussion-based classes with little movement • May be acceptable for large image, large font PowerPoint presentations with little or no animation Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

28. Results 2 • Marginal operating costs were relatively small and limited mainly to the salary of the technician operating the camera and performing post-production work • It was possible to stream from virtually any classroom or conference room on campus with the mobile cart Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

29. Results 3 • To determine effectiveness of synchronous classroom-based streaming video, we performed a t-test for unequal variances on the course grade scores for the two groups • Ho:u1 = u2(Null hypothesis: means of the two groups are equal) • Ha:u1 <> u2(Alternative hypothesis: means of the two groups are not equal) Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

30. Results 4 • Analysis of the student course grade scores for each group (in-class vs. remote) shows a strong similarity of the means • Using the t-test for unequal variances, the p-value was 0.84; this provides a strong statistical conclusion that the means are not different Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

31. Results 5 • Low cost narrow bandwidth synchronous streaming of classroom-based instruction appears to be as effective as the traditional classroom environment in this instance Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

32. Methodological/Data Problems 1 • 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 • There is no information about the students aside from their group and their final course grade score Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

33. Methodological/Data Problems 2 • There is no information about computing ability or knowledge at the beginning of the class • There were no pre- and post- tests • Not “blind”; instructor knows who is in each group Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

34. Classroom Management 1 • Instructor’s teaching style and course content must be amenable to this delivery method if it is to be successful • Instructors don’t need to change their classroom methods very much to succeed with Internet streaming video broadcasting; long periods of training appear to be unnecessary Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

35. Classroom Management 2 • Preparation, rehearsal, and timely distribution of supporting material are critical to successful streaming video presentations Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

36. Classroom Management 3 • Faculty workload increases in this environment, but not nearly as much as in an asynchronous text or multimedia-based online teaching environment • Time spent on preparation and production is less with streaming video, though post-production work may be more, depending on the faculty member’s decisions on how much to do after class Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

37. Secondary Observations 1 • Students watched archived classes they missed due to illness, travel, work, etc. • Students reviewed or intensively studied classes or portions they did not understand when the material was originally presented Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

38. Secondary Observations 2 • Instructor could review class files to correct errors in presentations or to add supplementary material to a web-based errata file • Instructor could review class files to examine their methods for teaching effectiveness and make improvements where necessary Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

39. Secondary Observations 3 • Class files could be reviewed for teaching effectiveness when making decisions relating to contract renewal, tenure, post-tenure review, and professional development Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

40. Secondary Observations 4 • Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (.smil) files may be used to create, or contribute to, learning modules of any length to improve instruction • .SMIL file-based learning modules may be used to make material available to other classes or groups Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

41. Secondary Observations 5 • Students want more classes offered via streaming video if they have access to fast connections like Oceanic Cable’s RoadRunner service Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

42. Secondary Observations 6 • System was reliable • There were very few incidents of hardware failure, software failure, links to server, or server failure • Slow connections, network congestion, and lack of Quality of Service (issues of network packet priority) were problems for some dial-up students Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

43. Secondary Observations 7 • Network bandwidth is the critical variable in streaming video viewer satisfaction • Faster connections support notably better viewer experiences • No amount of preparation can overcome problems associated with a slow connection or network congestion • Viewers will blame you or the technologyif their picture is bad Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

44. Future Research 1 • More rigorous study and analysis of classroom-based synchronous streaming video needs to be performed to confirm these preliminary findings Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

45. Future Research 2 • Students thought viewing archived streaming video class files on demand (asynchronously) could be as effective from an instructional viewpoint as participating in the live class (synchronously), provided they could then interact with the instructor via e-mail, chat, or videoconferencing • Asynchronous delivery with a scheduled online class meeting component could increase access Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

46. Future Research 3 • Archived files could be viewed when network traffic was low, or, archived files could be distributed on CDs which would eliminate delivery problems associated with slow network connections or network congestion—this could be a boon to less developed areas with weak infrastructures Flower and Sawa, “Streaming Video from the Classroom to the Remote Student’s Desktop”

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