Building Bridges - E-Infrastructures and Technologies for Lifelong Learning - page 242

remaining webcast viewers as part of the normal
webcast audio/video stream.
Participation in the videoconference was facili-
tated using a hand raising metaphor. Participants
at the satellite campus would literally raise their
hands and the teaching assistant would bring the
microphone to them. Remote participants clicked
an icon, and were then included in the videoconfer-
ence by the moderator, and granted permission to
speak. Their status bar (see 'b' in Figure 3), typi-
cally gray, would then turn green and their status
changed from “watching” to “on air.”

The remainder assessed student experience in
the course and with our system. Some question-
naire items were borrowed from course evaluation
scales used at our university. Others came from
established measures of presence in virtual envi-
ronments (Witmer & Singer, 1998), and a small
number were developed for this study. Response
rates varied between 50-60%.
Interviews. Semi-structured 20-60 minute
interviews were conducted with 7 students, with
4 interviewed multiple times during the term.
Similar interviews were conducted with five
guest speakers, and the teaching assistant at the
satellite campus.
Field Observations. Field observations were
conducted at both campuses. Three independent
observers conducted a total of 11 1-3 hour ob-
servation sessions and recorded detailed field
notes that were later typed and expanded upon
for analysis. Observers paid particular attention
to student experience at both of the sites and the
smoothness of interaction within and between
the sites. Four observation sessions were at the
satellite campus, and seven at the main campus.
One observer conducted observations on both
campuses for comparison.

The In-Room Awareness Display

The in-room awareness display (Figure 2) satisfies
our goal of providing the speaker with awareness
of the remote audience, and lets the speaker and
local audience quickly assess the composition of
the satellite and remote audiences, and their level
of engagement. It consists of visual representations
of remote participants, and a persistent chat win-
dow that displays text questions, comments, and
contributions to discussion. Text is not intended
to be the primary means of communication, but
rather serves to augment voice conversation as
described by McCarthy and Boyd (2005). The
awareness display also indicates via color which
remote participants have permission to speak via
the videoconference.

Data Analysis

Interview transcripts and typed field note docu-
ments were read and re-read several times and a
preliminary coding scheme was developed. This
scheme focused on themes that were important
to us, but that were also clearly recurring as we
read through the data. These included:
Interaction: We noted when students and pre-
senters interacted. In particular, we paid attention
to how these incidents started and ended, how
smoothly they seemed to function, what media
were used (e.g., text, video/audio or face-to-face),
and who was involved.
Breakdowns: In looking at interactions,
we were particularly cognizant of breakdowns
in social process or the technical system being

Research Methods

Our study uses the case study research method
(Yin, 2009). In seeking to understand our case,
we used multiple data sources to gauge student
and presenter response.
Questionnaires. Four questionnaires were
administered to all students at periodic intervals.
The first gathered baseline demographic data
and student attitudes toward and experience with
technology, using an established instrument by
Caruso and Kvavik (2005).