AALS Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana  January 2-6, 2002
| |||
| |||
Distance Learning: Alternative Modes of Educational Delivery INTRODUCTION Prior to the beginning of the Spring 2001 semester, I was called to active duty for training in the United States Army at the Judge Advocate General’s School in Charlottesville, Virginia. To comply with the American Bar Association’s requirements for class minutes, I proposed teaching Introduction to Government Contract Law using various distance learning techniques, which included e-mail communications, web-based instruction platforms, and, most critical, synchronous video-teleconferenced meetings. The following discussion is an after-action report that describes the logistics, efficiency, costs, and overall educational impacts of distance learning for my classes scheduled during my activation. I also conclude with a lessons learned or a “wish list” of what I wish I had known before I started. LOGISTICS Producing a synchronous video teleconferenced class or course, which is supported by University of Hawai`i at M?noa, requires compliance with various procedures. The University’s Office of Information Technology Services (ITS) dictates the guidelines and procedures for requesting both In-State and Out-of-State dial-up video teleconferencing.1 The Office of Information Technology Services provides many users with access to its resources. The Office will accept requests from University of Hawai`i departments and campuses, University of Hawai`i student organizations, and private, non-profit organizations. Priority is given to faculty, departments, and campuses.2 The procedures for producing an Out-of-State video teleconference are not onerous. First, the faculty member should request a reservation from the Distance Learning and Instructional Technology (DLIT) group four weeks prior to the date of delivery of the video teleconference. The DLIT group operates the Interactive Television (ITV) equipment and confirms reservations. The four-week lead-time is necessary to allocate and coordinate the use of resources. While the four-week notice is suggested, the group is very flexible in confirming reservations that come in just days prior to the delivery date. The DLIT ITV scheduler requires certain information from the far end site (Out-of-State location) before the reservation can be confirmed. The necessary information includes, but is not limited to, location, hardware and software manufacturers, and network/dial-up specifications. The scheduler is responsible for reservations and marshalling technical support at the near end site (UH Manoa). In addition, the scheduler performs the test with the far end site to establish systems integration between the near end and far end sites. After the scheduler completes the connection test, she contacts the faculty member to confirm the date and time for the synchronous video teleconference. The DLIT group has the capability to transmit both one-way and two-way video. In my course, I used two-way synchronous/interactive transmission to best simulate the law school discussion environment.3 EFFICIENCY In order for technology in the classroom and supporting the classroom to be worthwhile, it must be efficient. There is no need to become involved in distance learning if the pre-course planning of communications, systems integration, and internet-based learning platforms create inefficiency in the preparation or delivery of course content. My experience with the DLIT group demonstrates that distance learning preparation and delivery can be accomplished efficiently. The DLIT group has created a user-friendly query system to process ITV requests. Thus, the faculty member is not required to have specific knowledge of networks, communications, or computer systems in order to take advantage of distance learning technology. The faculty member is only required to be an initial conduit between the near end site and the far end site. After facilitating the first contact between the near end site and the far end site, the faculty member has no other responsibilities. The faculty member may choose to invest a minimal amount of time becoming comfortable with personal expressions in a television medium, for example facial expressions, eye-to-eye contact, and directions to technical support personnel at the projecting site. In addition, video teleconferencing technology allows smart board use, which enables the instructor to operate an overhead projector to televise slides, graphs, or other media. The instructor may seek to practice with a smart board before conducting the class session. COSTS The DLIT group charges nominal fees for its myriad services. For example, the monetary cost for the test call to establish the link from the near end site to the far end site is a flat rate of $100.00. The cost for initiating a VTC call to a far end site is $100.00 per hour. The latter cost includes a room assignment charge at the near end site, technical engineering provisions, instructional media, and staff support. These monetary costs become important in a cost benefit analysis that must balance the cost of investing in distance learning technology against the revenue received from the distance learning endeavor.4 In my use of distance learning technology, the law school incurred the cost of testing the link between the near end site and the far end site; but the law school did not receive monetary revenue in return. Traditionally, distance learning for profit takes advantage of new tuition dollars from prospective students without access to higher education instruction. The traditional paradigm for distance learning seeks to capitalize on unspent prospective tuition dollars.5 While my use of distance learning did not create monetary revenue, my use did reduce the incalculable costs of make-up class scheduling, delayed instruction, and student angst. As you know, many faculty members are called to travel mid-semester on behalf of the University or in connection with public service, which reflects positively on the University. For these faculty members, distance learning technology would offer a convenient alternative to canceling and rescheduling classes. Cost and scheduling also impact students. In order to achieve success in the current distance learning platform, UH law school students must trek to another building on campus to attend VTC classes, because the law school is not equipped with smart classroom technology to support VTC transmissions. As a result, students may be rushed as they try to move from the law school to the transmission location back to the law school. EDUCATIONAL IMPACTS A major concern of using distance learning technology is its educational and pedagogical impacts, either real or perceived, on the end users, i.e., faculty and students. I approached the use of distance learning technology with a positive attitude. I would propose that for this technology to succeed, it must be viewed with optimism and patience. A faculty member’s positive attitude about new technologies will filter to the students, who will then also approach new technologies with optimism. With this stated, my overall impression is that distance learning technology is extremely useful as one of many classroom tools, but it should not be used, unless absolutely necessary, exclusive of other instructional techniques. My impressions about the pedagogical successes and shortcomings of distance learning in general and synchronous video teleconferencing specifically are completely anecdotal. Thus, I will limit subjective conclusions to my first hand experience presenting my course. Keep in mind that for some, offering a Government Contracts course using Internet and ITV technology may have provided all of the excitement capable for such a course!6 I held my first VTC class on January 29, 2001 at 11:20 a.m. HST and 4:20 p.m. EST. The class lasted roughly one hour and ten minutes. Class began on time, and students appeared to acclimate to the classroom with ease; however, this ease seemed to dissipate the moment the class commenced, because the students were obviously not comfortable using the microphone, mute functions, and sound panels on their desks. My assessment is that the students were presented with an unusual class environment. I observed my own discomfort with the silence and, accordingly, I began to lecture in an effort to replace the silence. From this class experience, I reasoned that professors most accustomed to lecturing would benefit the most from this medium. I now believe that this reasoning is erroneous. Student participation increased after I initiated a question and answer session. At the conclusion of this class, I asked for e-mail comments about the class and the presentation medium. Most students were ambivalent about the medium, and no students had clarification questions. One student who added my course after I taught the first class in person confided that she did not like the medium, because she could not develop the level of excitement that she had anticipated from speaking to my former students who took classes from me in the prior semester. She wanted to know when I would return so that we would not have to have anymore VTC classes. Three students commented that the VTC class was just fine, but that the technicians should be more proactive in changing camera angles, producing higher quality sound, and instructing students how to use the equipment before the start of class. I implemented the student comments about the production of the class, and I spoke with the technician at the end of the class to provide him with directions for producing the next VTC class. I held the next VTC class on January 31, 2001. Upon implementing the student suggestions, I noted a marked difference in the dynamics of the classroom and the class discussion. Instead of lecturing, I divided the class into two sections. Each section was required to represent a party in a case. The technician was able to change camera angles when questions were posed to either party. I imagine I could explain the dynamics by referring to a popular 1970’s television show, “The Family Feud.” I was able to direct and facilitate discussion by posing practical, case specific questions that required conversation from and between opposing parties. This technique sparked the class considerably, and I noticed that students began to discuss the issues and controversies between themselves, with only occasional reference to me during these debates. I began to feel like less of an instructor and more of a facilitator. It was almost as if my physical presence would have detracted from such a robust debate between the students. Upon my interjection, students quickly fixed themselves on me, and were able to take notes from me when necessary. My assessment of the second VTC class is that it was much better than the first. I was able to navigate the classroom with the proactive assistance from the technician. I was also able to use the smart board to project PowerPoint slides when necessary. In an effort to temper the use of technology, I posted my PowerPoint slides on the course web page prior to the VTC class meeting. Again, I asked for comments after this class presentation. The student comments were much more favorable after this second class. I believe that the implementation of a course web page along with e-mail communications greatly improved the effectiveness of the VTC class meetings. I would propose that distance learning pedagogy requires the use of additional communication tools like web pages and e-mail. While I appreciated the VTC experience, I would not use it for all of my classes. I can envision the need for this technology in the law school community, because most of our faculty members are routinely called upon to leave the State of Hawai`i. I think that VTC equipment would be an excellent instructional tool for daily class use. For example, students and faculty would benefit from one- or two-way synchronous transmissions in the following venues:
Overall, my impression is that distance learning technology is a useful class tool that has the potential to turn class presentations into robust productions. To maintain sound pedagogy while employing distance learning technology, faculty members and students must become familiar with VTC equipment, its range, and its limitations. After discussing my class delivery with technicians from both the University of Hawai`i and The Judge Advocate General’s School, I am persuaded that distance learning is not a fad. I think distance learning pedagogy will become extremely crucial to the law school community and to the legal community at large. I anticipate that being on the cutting edge of this technology and actively using it in our classrooms will make the University of Hawai`i, William S. Richardson School of Law that much more competitive in the global legal education market-place. This technology is bound to attract more students, prospective employers for our students, and academics interested in an intellectual exchange with our law school. LESSONS LEARNED Nothing takes the place of good planning. Rather than using distance learning technology to solve problems that arise due to absence, it should be used in an affirmative sense to cover course material particularly suited for Internet or ITV transmission. For example, casebook problems could easily be transformed into CALI-like Internet activities. This would save class time as well as ensure that students practice the principles and concepts developed in a guided class. There is no substitute for a one-on-one relationship. When I started teaching, I formed the habit of meeting with each of my students prior to the end of the first week of classes. These meetings were useful for developing personal relationships with students that would serve as a motivator for students to perform inside and outside of the class. Because of my activation schedule, I failed to meet each student in my class before I departed. I believe that had I developed the one-on-one relationship either with personal meetings or by telephone contact, I would have ensured the same class environment, even using distance learning technology, which I was always able to develop successfully in the traditional class environment. There is no doubt that distance learning technology requires coordination, especially if these services are offered across campus as opposed to within the department. I wish I had invited a technician over to sit in my class before I left, so that the technician could have seen the class dynamics before running the VTC classes. Finally, I wish our law school had the resources to invest in departmental distance learning equipment and support staff. This would make the technology more accessible and familiar to faculty and students.
1. See attachment A. (not included on website) |