![]() Printer friendly version |
Abstract 1. Introduction In 1999 the leaders of our university-the University of Canterbury, New Zealand-announced their intention to equip all lecture theatres on campus (approximately 20) with the necessary equipment to support virtual learning. Unsure what this would entail and at what cost, the authors of this paper proposed a trial research project to investigate practical methods for flexible delivery of lectures. Without massive institutional change, it was clear that Canterbury academics would not have time to develop extensive course materials for virtual learning. With this constraint in mind, we focused on designing, implementing and evaluating a system that would maximise the pedagogical benefits to students while minimising (to zero if possible) the additional work for the academics who deliver and administer the courses. Having designed and implemented the system, we trialed it as a resource available to the 746 students enrolled in a yearlong first year Computer Studies course. This paper describes the results of the four-month trial of the Canterbury Digital Lectures system. The system was designed to automatically capture and index traditional lecture content without requiring course teachers to change their presentation styles in any way. Students who were unable to attend lectures at their normal time and place would be able to view them by accessing CD-ROMs held at the university library and in computer labs. The following section provides the background design rationale for our system by reviewing various possible implementations of "virtual learning." Our description of the system and its objectives is followed by a discussion of the unexpected findings from the evaluation. The final section concludes the paper. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() 2. Dimensions of
Virtual Learning |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
2.1 Learning Media
A wide variety of computer-supported media can be used in an attempt
to enhance, offer a surrogate for, or replace these traditional media.For
example, it is becoming common for students to bring tape-recorders to
lectures, but the lack of any indexing into the audio-stream severely
inhibits the potential utility of the recordings for a student who understood
all of a lecture except for the bit on topic X. Systems such as the Classroom
2000 project (Abowd 2000), the Cornell Lecture Browser (Mukhopadhyay and
Smith 1999), and our Digital Lectures project aim to overcome these limitations
by automatically capturing and indexing lecture content. A key distinguishing
characteristic of new computational learning media is the level of activity
required from students. Passive media simply provide a static resource
for the students. Recording and indexing lectures and the now standard
practice of putting course materials on the web are both examples of relatively
passive media. Passive approaches to learning media have been criticised
as gift-wrapping (Fischer 1998), but it seems reasonable to expect that
they can provide improvements to courses at relatively low costs. For
example, web-based course handouts can be updated and improved on-demand,
and indexed lecture recordings can aid students who were unable to attend
the original lecture.
In contrast to passive media, active media provide an interactive resource
that students can use to test and build their understanding. There are
three types of active educational systems. Firstly, interactive simulation
and exploration environments let students explore the effects of changing
properties within an interactive space. For example, animations of algorithm
execution (see Brown and Sedgewick (1985) for an early example) allow
students to explore the algorithm's behaviour by changing data and parameter
values and observing the resultant behaviour. Secondly, intelligent tutoring
systems (Sleeman and Brown 1982) attempt to model the student's understanding
of a problem domain, and then tailor the information they present appropriately.
Thirdly, reflection and discussion spaces, such as bulletin board and
Net News systems, allow students to build a repository of information
that interlinks contributions by a potentially wide range of participants
and sources. Examples include the Dynasites system (Fischer 2000) that
was explicitly constructed as an environment to support lifelong learning,
and a wide range of design-rationale and FAQ type systems such as the
Answer Garden (Ackerman and Malone 1990) and gIBIS (Conklin and Begeman
1998).
We do not advocate either an exclusively passive or active approach
to computational media in support of learning. Rather we see that the
optimal solution will combine and integrate a variety of media to allow
users to choose tools that best suit their needs at a particular time.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
2.2 Time and Place
of Learning There are several important implications of this capability. Firstly,
the flexibility gained broadens the potential student base, opening a
wide range of educational possibilities for lifelong learning, for the
full-time employed, and for those with family commitments. Secondly, the
perennial problems of timetabling clashes need not exclude students from
particular courses. Thirdly, lecture theatre capacity no longer needs
to constrain course sizes. Fourthly, on-line media can be reviewed as
many times as the student feels is necessary. Traditional lectures, in
contrast, are a once-only medium, and students who missed the lecture
or temporarily lost attention have no way to review the real-time explanation.
Finally, the freedom from time and place constraints opens the possibility
of globally competitive education markets. Commercial Internet-based education
resources such as stanford-online.stanford.edu and unext.com are early
entrants into this market. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
2.3 Support for
Collaboration On-line systems can support collaboration through simple text-based
bulletin boards, through collaborative simulation and exploration environments
that explicitly account for multiple users (for example TurboTurtle's
synchronous collaboration (Cockburn and Greenberg 1998) and AgentSheet's
asynchronous collaboration (Repenning, Ioannidou, and Phillips 1999)),
or through supporting collaboration around a passive medium such as recorded
lectures. Of particular interest to us is the notion of supporting collaboration
around video recordings of lectures. In an early study on video-based
instruction, Gibbons, Kincheloe and Down (1977) showed that engineering
students' learning can suffer when students watch lectures individually.
However, when students receive support for discussion and collaboration
around the video, using the Tutored Video Instruction (TVI) model, their
learning improves. This early research has been substantiated by further
studies with other content disciplines and in other cultures (Appleton
et al., 1989; Murray & Efendioglu, 1999). Subsequent research, such as
that reported in Cadiz, Balachandran, Sanocki, Gupta, Grudin, and Jancke,
(In Press) has begun to investigate distributed versions of the TVI model,
where physically remote students are connected to each other by multiple
audio/video feeds.
A final issue is that of equity between students participating remotely
and locally. Anecdotal evidence indicates that remote students in live
video lectures (one-way video, but two way audio) felt like second-rate
participants1, although it did give them more freedom in the
lecture (for example, to arrive late, or to collect a handout from the
front). |
![]() 1 Gerhard Fischer, private communication. |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
2.4 Capital Investment,
Effort and Social Factors Institutions with a long history of supporting distance education-for
example Stanford University in the U.S. and the Open University in the
U.K.-make large capital investments in producing high quality media such
as broadcast quality TV lectures/documentaries to support their courses.
These financial outlays are then ameliorated over thousands of students
across the entire nation, and over several years.
Clearly, not all teaching institutions can compete for distance learning
students against highly commercialised alternatives. The question then
becomes the following: how can traditional residential universities best
use their available resources to enhance their support for learning?
Beyond the resources dedicated to on-line courses, many social factors
must be addressed in preparing courses for flexible delivery. Systems
that depend on lecturers and course administrators changing their teaching
habits may promise a wide range of learning benefits to students, but
if the lecturers fail to make the necessary changes then no benefits can
be realised. Furthermore, many lecturers have concerns about issues such
as copyright, liability and job-protection when every action and utterance
in the lecture theatre is captured on multiple media (Stein, 2001; Gorman,
1998). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
3. Canterbury's Digital
Lectures Project The main difference between our work and that of the Cornell Lecture
Browser is that we focus on the ways in which students used the end products,
while Mukhopadhyay and Smith focus on the technology used to generate
the end product. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
3.1 The Student's
Interface Various controls allow the user to navigate freely through the lecture.
As well as the normal fast-forward and rewind controls, the user can click
on the timeline (beneath the control-buttons) to jump to a particular
time in the lecture. Also, the right-hand side of the interface provides
a hypertext keyword index to the lecture. Clicking on an item in the list
causes the video and audio streams to immediately jump to the associated
part of the lecture.
The actual interface that the students used in the trial, reported in
the evaluation section, was identical to this interface except that it
did not support multiple video streams. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() Figure 2. Zoomed into the overhead. |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
3.2 Capture and
Distribution While continuing to work on methods for automating the creation of digital
lectures, we ran a four-month trial of the student's interface to the
digital lectures in a large first year Computer Studies course. During
this trial we used a wizard-of-oz technique (Gould, Conti, Hovanyecz,
1983) in which human input simulates the automatic capture of the digital
lecture. The student's interface, however, was unaffected by the wizard-of-oz
data capture. During the lecture, a cameraperson operated the camera.
The feasibility of automated camera management is demonstrated by Liu,
Rui, Gupta and Cadiz (2000), who show that most people could not tell
whether lecture room video was captured by a person or by an automatic
system. After the lecture, an operator ran a series of programs that captured
and burnt the lecture contents onto a CD-ROM. The programs translated
the digital video (DV) tape into a motion-JPEG stream with a synchronised
MP3 audio stream. Finally, the operator watched the video and created
hypertext links-identifying topics in the lecture-synchronised with the
video stream. In doing so, the operator looked for points where the lecturer
moved from one slide to the next, and typed the banner text of the slide.
Again, the feasibility of automatic techniques is demonstrated by Mukhopadhyay,
and Smith (1999) who describes techniques for automatically identifying
slide changes and by Wellner (1993a, 1993b) who discusses techniques for
retrieving text from video images.
The CD-ROMs (one for each lecture throughout the course) were available
for students in the university library and in the laboratories where the
students attended weekly lab classes. Using CD-ROMs as a distribution
medium allowed us to closely monitor use. We required students to complete
a questionnaire each time they used a CD-ROM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
4. Evaluation and
Results Initial use of the system was extremely light, with only four students
attempting to use the system throughout July and August. At the same time
lecture attendance appeared to be lower than during the previous term.
Throughout September and early October only two people accessed the
digital lectures. As a result, the course lecturer sent an email message
to the class asking whether it was worthwhile to continue to make digital
lectures available. Much to our surprise (given the extremely low use
of the system until then), fifty-three students replied, strongly urging
us to continue producing the lectures. Comments from the students in their
email replies indicate that many had been intending to use the digital
medium for some time, but had not gotten around to doing so:
> Do you intend to view the
Digital Lectures before the COSC110 exam?
> When are you likely to want to view them?
> Have you tried to use the Digital Lectures already?
A subsequent survey, sent to all students who urged their course supervisor to continue to make the system available, was designed to uncover reasons why students had not used the system. Students who had used the system were also asked for their comments on the system's usefulness. There were 14 respondents, from 46 surveys sent, yielding a 30% response rate. Four respondents had used the system and ten had not. The small number of respondents makes statistical significance tests unreliable, but as an exploratory study, this provides some valuable insights. Comments from those who had intended to use the system, but had not, ranged from personal reasons (part-time student, had a boyfriend to help, etc.) to time and motivation issues (lack of time, kept putting it off). These comments are show in Figure 3. Of all the comments, however, the issue of procrastination was the most common, with nine out of ten respondents commenting that lack of time or putting it off were the reasons why they did not use the system. Other key issues seem to be logistical, with some unsure how to access the system or having difficulties because the Library computer lab was too busy. This is supported by the comments from those who used the system who also commented that the loft computer lab machines were slow, not all machines would run the CDs and some librarians were unsure about the system. However the primary comments from the users of the system were regarding the quality of the system with comments that the video quality was not particularly good and that just audio would have been satisfactory. These comments are shown in Figure 4. Several respondents commented that the Digital Lectures were a good idea, but many recommended that the system would have been more accessible if it had been on the Web. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() Figure 3. Non-user student responses to survey regarding Digital Lecture system |
![]() |
|
![]() Figure 4. User student responses to survey regarding Digital Lecture system |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
4.1 Discussion
However this is not the only possible explanation for the phenomenon.
Among other logistical issues, students noted other factors, such as poor
video quality and a busy lab, which made access difficult. |
![]() |
![]() |
5. Recommendations
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
6. Conclusions This paper investigated some of the possibilities and problems of virtual
learning systems. In particular, we reported the somewhat surprising results
of a four-month trial of the Canterbury Digital Lectures Project. In essence,
the results of our trial suggest that providing too much flexibility to
students at a residential university can have negative learning results.
By providing a digital surrogate for live lectures, it appears that students
made less effort to attend the lectures, and that they never fulfilled
their intention to catch up using the digital media.
In retrospect, it is unsurprising that misplaced technological support
can have negative effects on learning (or at least on class participation).
In our further work we intend to address the questions that identify the
conditions under which learning technology is well placed. For instance,
we would like to know whether our technology would have had a positive
effect if we had used the web to bring the lectures to students who could
not otherwise have participated in classes. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]()
7. References Ackerman, M. and Malone, T. 1990. Answer garden: A tool for growing
organizational memory, in F. Lochovsky and R. Allen, eds., Proceedings
of the Conference on Office Information Systems. April 25-27 1990. Cambridge
Mass., pp.31-39.
Adjeroh, D., Bell, T., Cockburn, A., McKenzie, B. and Vargo, J. 2000.
Technological challenges in automating capture of digital lectures. Working
paper in preparation.
Appleton, A., Dekkers, J., and Sharma, R., 1989. Improved teaching excellence
by using Tutored Video Instruction: An Australian Case Study, Proceedings
of the 11th EAIR Forum, Trier, Germany.
Brown, M. and Sedgewick, R. 1985. Techniques for algorithm animation,
IEEE Computer 2(1), 28-39.
Cadiz, J., Balachandran, A., Sanocki, E., Gupta, A., Grudin, J. and
Jancke, G. In Press. Distance learning through distributed collaborative
video viewing, in Proceedings of CSCW2000 ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, December 2-6. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Cockburn, A. and Greenberg, S. 1998. The Design and Evolution of TurboTurtle,
a Collaborative Microworld for Exploring Newtonian Physics, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48(6), 777-801.
Conklin, J. and Begeman, M. 1988. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory
policy discussion, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems
6(4), 303-331.
Fischer, G. 1998. Making learning a part of life-beyond the "gift-wrapping"
approach of technology, in P. Alheit and E. Kammler, eds, Lifelong
Learning and Its Impact on Social and Regional Development, Donat
Verlag, pp. 435-462.
Fischer, G. 2000. Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity, and meta-design,
Knowledge-Based Systems. In press.
Gibbons, J., Kincheloe, W. and Down, K. 1977. Tutored videotape instruction:
A new use of electronic media in education, Science 195, 1139-1146.
Gorman, R.A., 1998. Intellectual property: The rights of faculty as
creators and users, Academe, Washington; May/Jun 1998; Vol. 84,
Issue 3; 14-19.
Gould, J., Conti, J. and Hovanyecz, T. 1983. Composing letters with
a simulated listening typewriter, Communications of the ACM 26(4),
295-308.
Liu, Q., Rui, Y., Gupta, A. and Cadiz, J. 2000. Automating camera management
for lecture room environments, Technical Report 00-90, Microsoft Research,
Redmond. http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/coet/Camera/TRs/00-90.pdf
Mukhopadhyay, S. and Smith, B. 1999. Passive capture and structuring
of lectures, in Proceedings of the seventh ACM Multimedia Conference
October 30 - November 5. Orlando, Florida, pp. 477-487.
Murray, L., and Efendioglu, A., 1999. Distance education: Delivery systems
and student perceptions for business education in China, Proceedings
of the Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting, 281-3.
Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A. and Phillips, J. 1999. Collaborative use
and design of interactive simulations, in ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Learning (CSCL '99). Stanford.
Sleeman, D. and Brown, J., eds. 1982. Intelligent Tutoring Systems,
Academic Press.
Stein, S., 2001. The media production model, EDUCAUSE Review,
Jan/Feb 2001, Vol. 36, No. 1, pg. 26. Uchihashi, S., Foote, J., Girgensohn,
A. and Boreczky, J. 1999. Video Manga: Generating semantically meaningful
video summaries, in Proceedings of the seventh ACM Multimedia
Conference October 30 - November 5. Orlando, Florida, pp. 383-392.
Wellner, P. 1993a. Adaptive thresholding for the DigitalDesk,
Technical Report EPC-93-110, Rank Xerox EuroPARC.
Wellner, P. 1993b. Self calibration for the DigitalDesk, Technical
Report EPC-93-109, Rank Xerox EuroPARC. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |