Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Students we interviewed at both campuses
indicated that they sat and talked with their friends
from their respective campuses; and were assigned
to project groups with only students from their
campuses. Thus, it is possible that the video display
would have been more useful to students at the
local campus if they had an interest in interacting
with students who were elsewhere.
There was also evidence of a separate group
forming at the satellite campus. This was clear
to one observer in particular, who noted that the
students and teaching assistant periodically made
jokes (sometimes out loud) to each other about
what was happening at the main campus, knowing
that the people at the main campus couldn't hear
them. While students at the main campus talked
to each other during class too, these were mostly
whispered comments within small groups of stu-
dents who knew each other well, which is distinct
from the satellite campus where many comments
were intended for the whole group to hear.
As for the awareness experience of those who
participated remotely, they reported that they
could tell who was talking when that person was
on camera, but this was not always clear. One
student also indicated that she felt she was able
to pay closer attention and participate more fully
when signed in from home. This was because:
ability to maintain awareness of and interact with
the satellite and remote students.
Instructor-Student Interaction
All of the presenters we spoke with indicated that
the system adequately allowed them to interact
with students, and was certainly better than no
interaction at all. Speakers had varying reac-
tions, however, to the persistent chat feature of
the awareness display. Some paid attention to it,
noting when there were questions submitted via
text. Others had to be told when these questions
appeared. One indicated that it would be useful to
have some sort of signal when a question appears,
and to know how many other questions there are.
Despite this positive response, there was evi-
dence in our observational data that instructors did
not interact with the satellite and remote students
as often as with the local students. Several speak-
ers, for example, looked only to the local audience
for questions. Another guest speaker asked dur-
ing his lecture if there were any questions “from
the bleachers” (meaning the satellite campus),
in reference to the typically inexpensive seats
far from home plate in many American baseball
stadiums. While this was likely meant as a joke,
it is a telling one in that it reveals his sense that
the local students were privileged.
Such “local audience bias,” however, was
sometimes overcome via reminders. We observed
several incidents where the primary instructor
reminded guest speakers to ask if there were ques-
tions at the satellite campus. This helped in that
the guest speakers did then look to the satellite
audience, where there often were questions. None
of the speakers we interviewed indicated that the
explicit reminder was particularly disruptive.
There were also some incidents where the
teaching assistant or a student at the satellite
campus thought they were being called on by
the presenter and began to speak. In actuality, the
presenter had called on a local student, but this
There wasn't anybody around or anything, so I paid
really good attention to what was happening in
the lecture. And it was easier for me to participate
because all I had to do is type, as opposed to like
getting the microphone and all that stuff (SS3).
Instructor Experience
As the key goals of our system were to improve
instructor-student interaction and awareness, we
next examined data from our observations and
interviews with guest presenters and instructors.
We interviewed five guest speakers and one
teaching assistant, focusing in particular on their
Search WWH ::




Custom Search