We had our Elluminate-based session yesterday. Unfortunately I forgot to record the session. I think I should be able to adequately describe the session nonetheless.
The session was roughly composed of and can be considered in three phases – Access, Experience & Discussion.
Phase One – Access
Most of the problems with the session were computer-related (surprise).
Fifteen minutes from the session start time, I discovered that Irene didn’t have a headset. We managed to source one, and logged into the computer at the computer suite that I had booked for the purpose. Unfortunately the computer within this suite was blocked from accessing Elluminate. With five minutes to go, I returned to my office and managed to log in one minute before we were due to start. Irene now needed to install the java application to her computer, and log in to Elluminate. While walking through the audio-set up she discovered that she was unable to turn up the volume slider when trying to listen. As all of this was going on, Karole was having trouble with her mike. We had discovered previously that Irene’s headset didn’t have a mike, so here I was about to start on an Elluminate session (now 10 minutes late), and only 1 out of my three participants actually had a mike. One also couldn’t hear anything through her headset, but luckily enough was sitting next to me. Lucky for me I’m a bit of a stress management expert – BREATHE. 
On the upside, three out of three people were able to log into the session.
Reflection
I tried to ensure easy access to the Elluminate session for the participants (through directing them to the auto-setup wizards on the Elluminate site, and instructing them to allow time for downloading software) and although there were still problems with access, most of these were due to me trying to use a computer that I hadn’t used/tested previously for this purpose (pretty silly in retrospect). In the future I’ll endeavour to pre-test any computer and or network that I intend to use for educational purposes.
I think that I managed the needs of the participants pretty well. I’m happy that external participants had no major problems connecting with the session, as I believe that minimising technology-related issues is of prime importance in online education (Pillay, Irving, Tones, 2007). I was able to direct the participants who were already logged in to play around with the interface while I helped Irene get logged in.
I didn’t get stressed by the situation, and so was able to be calm & collected in communication with my students.
Phase 2 – Experience Technology
Once we were in the session, the participants were able to use messaging, and Ash (with the sole microphone) got the hang of talking fairly quickly. I demonstrated the use of power point in Elluminate, but unfortunately there was a lack of participation when I asked for people’s impressions of the proposed delivery model. I wanted the participants to type text-related impressions onto the screen, and then to use these as a basis for discussion but I didn’t get anything much to work with, so I moved on.
As we moved out of Elluminate into WikiEducator, blogs, and finally Pageflakes I used the hands up tool to determine if people could see on their screen what they needed for each stage of the directed exercise, and this was very successful. At each stage I was describing how each of these platforms would be used in the course. In the blog stage of the exercise, participants were supposed to login to their course blog, then copy & paste material from their WikiEd course page to their blog.
Unfortunately only one out of the three participants had managed to read their email prior to the session & set themselves up with a google account. As a result only one person was able to log into their blog & make their post. I made the most out of this by talking everyone through the process, and to finish off, we moved to look at the pageflakes-based course hub. The post that I had just made through my blog showed up, but it was at this stage that I found out the post made by the other participant had not been made correctly, as it didn’t show up (both here & on the course blog).
Reflection
The lack of participation in the group discussion was disappointing despite my use of open-ended questions, and encouragement of open discussion (Dobson, 2006). I am really interested to know what my staffs impressions are of this “brave new world”. I can interpret this in two contradictory ways
- When I asked for discussion, they were struggling with figuring out the communication interface, and this was distracting them from actually engaging with what I wanted to talk about (McQuillan, 2007b).
- They’re happy with what I’m proposing, and trust me enough to jump in & make the best of the experience
It was also disappointing that the blog-posting exercise wasn’t particularly successful. In retrospect perhaps I could have been more directive with my instructions on how to go about setting up a google account, or perhaps we could have spent some time at the start of the session. The participants are all very busy people, and probably saw this as just another thing to do. If I had either made it easier for them (being more directive), or embedded the process within the session this might have been more successful.
I’m surprised that there was a problem with the blog posting because I thought that the process was fairly simple. I did give step-by-step instructions but perhaps my familiarity with blogging has led me to see this process as easier and less complex than it actually is? I guess the main thing that I can take away from this is that engaging with computer applications will probably be more difficult than I expect it to be for a considerable proportion of the group that I am involved in facilitating. I probably need to drop my expectations of participants in terms of how self-directed they are able to be (given that self-effiacy is a pre-requisite of self-directed learning (Connor, 2004)).
However with those negatives in mind, it seems that the participants did get a sense of how the software applications will fit together in the delivery process, and were not overwhelmed with the prospect of gaining familiarity with these platforms. As these were the main objectives of the session, I still rate this section of the session a success.
Phase 3 – Discussion & Playtime
After the guided session we had some time to discuss what we’d just done, and how people felt about using these technologies next year. No-one seemed completely freaked out by what I was proposing which was a good sign, although there were requests for regular training/meetings based on working with the technology (already planned).
We spent some time after this just playing with the interface, and I have to say that the participants seemed to learn much more from this than the guided experience that I had designed for them previously.
Reflection
While participants seemed to develop skills in using the messaging window & in communication using the talk button, they seemed to learn quite a bit more and gain more confidence from the unstructured playtime in the Elluminate environment at the end of the session. This really adds more weight to Derek Chirnside’s suggestion to “practice & play with the tools before you use them” (McQuillan, 2007a), and it’s something I will definitely give more time to in the future.
Overall Reflection
Ithink that the balance of directed activities and facilitation worked fairly well in the session given the time constraints and learning outcomes. In terms of Salmon’s 5-stage model (2004), I think that the group was best characterised by the first level (Access & motivation), and to some degree the second (Online socialisation). Accordingly my aims were to provide access and an introduction to the technological platforms, and then to discuss any issues that arose. The model seemed to be appropriate in this case, and I will use it again.
Note
The reflections in this process have been informed by Bronwyn Hegarty’s three step reflective framework (2005), although the descriptions of reflection above do not follow the structure of the model.
References
Connor, C. (2004). Developing self-directed learners. Oregan, USA: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved on November 11, 2007 from http://www.nwrel.org/planning/reports/self-direct/index.html
The citizen’s handbook – a guide to building community
Hegarty Reflective Framework and Template. Retrieved on 20 November, 2007 from http://www.wikieducator.org/Hegarty_Reflective_Framework_and_Template
Managing technology glitches in online educationhttp://massageonline.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/managing-technology-glitches-in-online-education/
Time, familiarity and socialisation.http://massageonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/time-familiarity-and-socialisation/
Pillay, H., Irving, K., & Tones, M. (2007). Validation of the diagnostic tool for assessing Tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 26:2, 217 – 234
Salmon, G. (2004). The 5-stage model. Retrieved on 18 November, 2007 from http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/5stage.shtml
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 21, 2007 at 4:18 am
Sue Waters
Hi David – don’t stress I use Elluminate all the time and often forget to record. It is just that one more thing I have to remember to do. With people new to the course I suggest they log into Eluminate 30 minutes prior to the session so I can troubleshoot with them. I also encourage all existing students to log in so that they can chat and socialise prior to the listen. I switch myself to away so that they can chat freely and only jump in if a new student needs help.
Getting interaction happening is really hard. My students have been using it a long time and still struggle with this aspect. What I do is put the question on the white board and then ask them to provide the answer by DM in the chat window, writing it on the whiteboard or using the microphone. I then compile all the answers to the whiteboard. Students, even those experienced with technology, tend to be reluctant to speak up in the virtual environment – personally I think it relates to the lack of seeing body language. So if you want someone to answer a questions you are often best to nominate a person and ask them to answer it. Ask as a group question and you will normally hear silence.
Always happy to play in Elluminate if you want to.
Probably easier to set up accounts for them and send them the details — perhaps even use application sharing to helping them write posts.
November 21, 2007 at 10:05 am
Yvonne
Hi David
It sounds like your session was successful. I have observed colleagues lessons (face-to-face, classroom stuff) in the past and there is always something that doesn’t go to the lesson plan. But as the lesson develops, the teacher adapts to the student response and the environment they are working in. It sounds like this is what you did, and at the end of it the learners gained skills and experience – “participants seemed to learn much more from this than the guided experience that I had designed for them previously”. Good stuff
Yvonne
November 26, 2007 at 1:24 am
bronwyn hegarty
Sounds like you managed to surmount the ever present challenges of technology David and it was a relief to read your positive take on what you achieved.
I would be really interested in hearing what your participants thought of the session. perhaps you could send them a small 3 Q survey on email. This would certainly help so you can see if your perceptions match theirs, and give your reflections some extra body. You could focus it to be either from their personal or their professional perspectives or both.
For example,
From the perspective of a teaching or communication tool, please comment on the computer conferencing session on Elluminate.
1. What worked well?
2. What didn’t you like?
3. Have you any suggestions for improvement?
Bron
November 26, 2007 at 1:26 am
bronwyn hegarty
I also wish to make a comment about your reflection:
“While participants seemed to develop skills in using the messaging window & in communication using the talk button, they seemed to learn quite a bit more and gain more confidence from the unstructured playtime in the Elluminate environment at the end of the session.”
It is possible that your real live session would have worked better if they Or had perhaps seen computer conferencing in action as a group and been able to take turns on the one computer.
Or had done the informal playing first as you have said. I have always found it really difficult to get people to engage actively in computer conferencing sessions when everyone is sitting together in the same room.
You would probably have had a completely different experience if everyone had logged on from different rooms – if a lack of confidence to get on was the reason for putting everyone in the same room, you could have them in separate rooms for the next run through and run between them (or have a helper) to get them all logged on. Then have the session as a discussion rather than a teaching session about Elluminate – people do get distracted by the tools.
Bron