International
Journal of
Educational
Technology

Extending Learning Opportunities Through a VirtualFaculty - The Videoconference Option

Abstract

Background

In the mid 90s staff from Central Queensland University and DeakinUniversity began informal discussions regarding the possibility of sharingcourse offerings in some way, as it was becoming recognised that smallerchemistry departments were losing their ability to maintain as wide a rangeof courses and specialist subjects as had been previously offered. Theeffect of economic rationalism and a change in government policy werebeginning to have far reaching implications and these departments werelooking for ways of maintaining their viability in the longer term. Theseinformal discussions later formalised into an application for a Committeefor University Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD) grant to develop a‘virtual faculty’.

In recent years the notion of the virtual faculty has becomean accepted part of the educational landscape. The development of thesefaculties is usually driven by two major influences — competition andneed. In a world increasingly driven by economic rationalism and globalisation, many educational institutions are seeking ways to remainviable and competitive, as well as to increase or even simply maintaintheir market share. Virtual faculties are seen as an achievable way ofdoing this and the emergence of the World Wide Web and videoconferencing asaccessible technologies has provided environments that enable suchactivities. However, it is also true to say that the success of suchfaculties is uncertain and the high expectations of such ventures are notnecessarily being met.

While the Web appears to be the most common choice for developingvirtual faculties and universities, during initial discussions for thisparticular venture, the project team decided on videoconferencing as themost likely tool for establishing a virtual faculty. There were severalreasons for this decision. First was the educational purpose and learningneed. It was felt that videoconferencing allowed for in-depth, real-timeexploration of difficult concepts in advanced chemistry subjects andspecialisations that were best presented in a situation that would enableimmediate questioning and feedback. It was also felt that othertechnologies, such as the Web, would not easily allow for this kind ofinteraction. Second was the availability of an appropriate technologicalframework. The two initiating universities have sophisticated,well-established videoconferencing networks used for teaching across theirmulti-site campuses. The other universities which had been approachedregarding participation in the project had videoconferencing facilitieswhich were suitable for use in such a venture. This familiarity with, andacceptance of, videoconferencing as a teaching and learning tool reinforcedits choice as a suitable medium for establishing a virtual faculty.Additionally, this project was not considered to be a distance learning activity per se. It was seen as a flexibledelivery extension of the participating universities’ core teachingactivities and the need for face-to-face interaction was seen as paramount.Third was the relative knowledge the institutions had of usingvideoconferencing as a teaching and learning tool. While not all staff andstudents involved in the project had used videoconferencing for teachingand learning there was a general understanding within these institutionsregarding videoconferencing and the ways in which it could be utilised forteaching and learning activities. Many students also were familiar withusing videoconferencing and were not daunted by being involved in teachingand learning sessions using this medium. Fourth, the initiatinguniversities had explored some alternative teaching and learning strategiessuitable for videoconferencing and felt that the medium offered excellentopportunities for increasing student learning opportunities and extendingstaff skills in using technology as an effective teaching and learningtool. It was considered that the use of videoconferencing could alsoencourage a shift from didactic methods of teaching such as thosetraditionally used in science courses to more student-centred teaching andlearning processes.

This paper explores the adoption of videoconferencing as a viable toolfor creating virtual learning environments. Particular consideration wasgiven to providing course options for students in remote and regionalareas. It describes a national project that was undertaken to trial theconcept and to examine the notion of inter-university collaboration atseveral levels across a number of institutions. The paper outlines thebenefits and challenges of such undertakings and identifies factors for thesuccessful implementation of videoconferenced virtual faculties.

Educational rationale

Students undertaking final year, honours or postgraduate courses insmall universities may be disadvantaged because of the limited specialistexpertise that is within their institution. In some cases, students arenow unable to undertake an undergraduate program in certain disciplinesthat previously had been generally available at most institutions. Thissituation is increasingly becoming an issue as small departments are underthreat and some courses or specialisations are no longer being offeredbecause they lack financial viability. This problem has been recognised bythe Federal Government and resulted in the Maintaining Student Choiceprogram that was initiated in 1998. While this program concentrated mainlyon the disciplines of Classics, Languages, Music, Maths and Physics areas,several universities are experiencing difficulties in continuing to offer awide range of course offerings covering other discipline areas. A directoutcome of this loss or minimisation of diversity in course offerings isthe difficulty regional and small universities have in enabling a range ofpostgraduate options.

Most regional institutions have foci of expertise, albeit though small,which, if combined, represent a formidable range of teaching talents.Collaboration between universities can also be considered as the only meansof maintaining some courses in specialised areas where numbers are toosmall in one university to make the offer of such a course viable. Thewide scale adoption of telecommunications technologies across Australianuniversities offers a viable avenue for linking together clusters ofexpertise to form a virtual faculty.

Description of the Project

Using Chemistry as a test vehicle, the project aimed to examine therole of inter-university collaborative teaching via videoconferencing. Thisproject was seen as a crucial test of inter-university cooperation and akey option in enabling smaller universities to maintain vigorous, highquality degree programs in the face of competing demands on finances in aclimate of increasing budgetary constraints.

Universities that had been targeted for initial discussion priorto the grant application were those in regional areas or other areas wherethey were wishing to maintain current levels of course offerings. Theseinstitutions included the University of Tasmania (UTAS), the NorthernTerritory University (NTU), the University of New England (UNE), theUniversity of South Australia (USA) and the two initiating Universities,Central Queensland University (CQU) and Deakin University (Deakin). Afterconsiderable discussion, and for a variety of reasons, some of theinstitutions decided not to participate further at this stage in theoffering or receipt of units through the virtual faculty. The developmentof the virtual faculty eventually involved commitment from fourinstitutions: CQU, Deakin, NTU and UTAS.

The project was intended to enhance the learning experiences of finalyear, honours and postgraduate students through access to additionalspecialist expertise and a wider group of students. However, the unitsactually offered in the project were aimed at final year and honoursstudents.

To test the success of a virtual faculty the consortium intendedto develop five demonstration modules comprising content delivery anddiscussion/problem solving activities. The detailed topics were selected bythe consortium after examination of their collective needs and availableexpertise. In the initial phase discussions identified one demonstration model as chemometrics which was seen as a key subject area for all institutions and currently not available at all the participating universities due to budgetary constraints and staffing shortfalls. However,this option was not pursued in the project as other areas assumed higherpriority. Other subjects also considered were molecular modelling, polymerscience, environmental chemistry, chemical toxicity and chemical hazards.After careful consideration by all participating universities of allpossible units available for offer, the final subject areas selected weremolecular modelling, specialised organic synthesis and group theory.

It was agreed by all participating institutions that cross-accreditationof the offerings was not an issue as all the subjects offered were part ofnationally accredited degree programs. Assessment tasks were developed and markedby the staff member offering the subject regardless of where students wereenrolled. The students retained their enrolment at their respective homeuniversities. According to individual university’s course structures,subjects were treated either as Chemistry core subjects or as electives. Ineither case, they contributed fully to the students’ course ofstudy.

Support Technologies

While videoconferencing was the mediumof delivery, other technologies were used to support the learningactivities. These technologies included email, Web and print technologies.One of the challenges faced in developing virtual faculties is that ofestablishing ease of communication. Students often feel a little inhibited (Comeaux, 1995,Klease, Andrews & Druskovich, 1996) in being relaxedand at ease both with the lecturer and with students at other locations.For this reason, as well as the ease of use, e-mail was used forstudent-to-student contact and student to lecturer contact. While not alltook advantage of this option, those that did felt that the use of email tocommunicate helped to minimise the difficulties of not knowing thelecturer. These students also felt that it helped them to interact moreeasily with the other students.

The Web was also another tool that was used to help establishfamiliarity with other participants in the project. Placing staff andstudent photographs and biographical data on a web page was effective inencouraging this familiarity. Although videoconferencing enables staff andstudents to see each other, faces are often indistinct—particularly in large rooms and this makes it difficult to referto specific individuals by name. Both staff and students felt that theability to know your class was an important feature of theinteraction. This was facilitated by having the photographs and otherrelevant information on the Web. This helped staff to identify individualsat remote sites and refer to them by name. Both staff and students feltthat the more they knew each other, the easier it was to participatein virtual classes.

The Web was also used as a source of information for students. Course information,(structure, assessment details, contact information, etc) but notcontent, was also placed on the Web for ease of access by all students.This removed any concerns the project team had about students receivinginsufficient and inconsistent information about the various units beingoffered in the virtual faculty.

As well as being used for communication between project participants,email was used significantly for project management. Organisationalaspects were discussed and finalised using email and occasionally phonecalls where clarification was required. On the whole, however, email was avery adequate means of maintaining regular contact, sharing information andarranging and finalising organisational requirements. Videoconferencing wasalso used for project management, project planning and project evaluation.While email was an excellent medium for getting things done there was aneed for occasional real-time interaction to thrash out ideas, reachconsensus where required and to interact as a whole group.

While videoconferencing is acknowledged for it’s ability to enablea whole class consisting of groups of students at a number of differentsites to interact, it is also recognised for it’s weaknesses inenabling the presentation of complex graphics or written materials such ascomplicated chemical formulae and structures. As a result of materials of thisnature having to be sent using a document camera/visualiser the details ofcomplex materials can be very difficult to discern at receiving sites. For this reason print copies of overhead orPowerPoint slides and other related materials were provided to allstudents. This also encouraged student participation, as they were notconcerned with copying (often inaccurately) this complex information.Having the materials in front of them, they could then focus more on theinteractional aspects of the videoconference class. The other shortcomingof videoconferencing in respect to sending graphics and writteninformation, is that only one form of communication can be conducted at atime. The lecturer and materials from the document camera cannot be seenat the same time. Thus having the copies of diagrams and other graphicalinformation meant that the students were able to view and interact with thelecturer throughout the class, minimising the need to switch betweenlecturer and document camera.

While not used in this particular project it is recognised that aparallel computer link could be utilised to run CD packages and othersoftware. This can further (and sometimes more effectively) illustrate someof the complex and difficult points under discussion thus assistingstudents to develop a clear understanding of these issues. Such anapproach has been effectively used in intra-university videoconferenceclasses.

The above diagram demonstrates ways in which multiple resourcescan be successfully integrated into a multi-point videoconference, asdiscussed earlier. Technologies were selected for their particularstrengths in enhancing the learning experience.

While videoconferencing was the major mode of interaction for exploringclass materials, multimode delivery was extremely beneficial in addressingthe range of educational purposes and needs, including the social aspectsof learning.

Evaluation

Evaluation was seen as being central to the project and bothformative and summative evaluation practices were used. The formativeevaluation, in particular, was used to shape the direction of the projectand several changes were implemented as a result of these processes. Thesummative processes at the end of each set of subject offerings also had aformative aspect as they encouraged reflection on the experience to date,and provided valuable information for future directions. The finalsummative evaluation conducted at the conclusion of the project enabled theentire undertaking to be viewed in context and provided evidence that theoverall virtual faculty project was successful.

The evaluation sought to find answers to the following questions inparticular, as well as to evaluate the project as a whole.

• To what extent does a virtual faculty usingvideoconferencing enhance the learning experience?
  
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of a virtualfaculty using videoconferencing as a learning environment?
  
• What are the most appropriate forms of learning bestmediated via videoconferencing?
  
• In students' opinions what features make the video conferenced virtualfaculty attractive as a mode of learning delivery?
  
• What professional development for staff and studentsis required to effectively implement a virtual faculty usingvideoconferencing?

Evaluation was carried out through surveys, observations of theteaching and learning sessions, student focus groups, staff reflections,and staff interviews. A survey was conducted at the end of each set ofsubject offerings and provided both demographics and perceptions of beinginvolved in a virtual faculty. Students focus groups were conducted threetimes throughout each set of subject offerings—in the early stages ofthe semester, about half way through and at the end. Except for one face toface focus group with students at the University of Tasmania, all theseactivities were conducted using videoconferencing. The one face-to-facesession occurred because project team members were conducting a staffdevelopment exercise at the University of Tasmania and students tookadvantage of the opportunity to talk to the instructional designerdirectly. The instructional designer conducted the focus group sessions asthat person was perceived by the project team to be neutral. This was alsothe perception of the students who were quite comfortable in discussingboth the strengths and weaknesses of the virtual faculty project, whetherit was face-to-face interaction or across the videoconferencing network.

Concurrent with the focus groups, informal interviews were conductedwith lecturing staff. These interviews provided invaluable information asthey highlighted not only the strengths and weaknesses of the virtualfaculty but also provided insight into the lecturers own developingexperiences of using videoconferencing as a teaching and learning tool.These findings formed the basis of a discussion by team members via videoconferencing and resulted in adjustment and refinement of theproject.

Staff reflections were ongoing and were spontaneously communicated tothe project manager by email throughout each set of subject offerings.Reflections were also provided by staff at the end of each set of offeringsand at the end of the project.

Informal chat sessions also took place between students andparticipating lecturers, helping to shape the teaching and learningactivities.

While assessment and the way in which it was handled was an importantaspect of the project, assessment results were not used in any quantitativeway to evaluate the learning in comparison to other methods of teaching andlearning. The rationale for this was that the focus was on the processesand feasibility of developing virtual faculties rather than on comparingone form of teaching and learning with another.

Discussion of the Evaluation Outcomes

In general, students supported this innovation inteaching and learning and the opportunities it provided. Studentsappreciated the opportunity to expand their general knowledge of thediscipline and their specific knowledge of highly specialised areas ofchemistry. Students were willing to deal with the problems of timedifference in order to take advantage of this opportunity, which, on thisoccasion, resulted in very early classes. Additionally, they liked theexperience of interacting with a wider peer group and of learning from eachother’s different knowledge-base and backgrounds.

It is worth noting here that multi-point videoconferencing ismost effective with small groups of students (20 to 25 across 3 or 4 sites)as stated by Mason, (1994) cited in Burke, London and Daunt (1997)

'small learning groups...show much higher levels and quality ofinteraction than large groups using the same technology. (p.27)'

Small groups enable the opportunities for peerand lecturer interaction, as described above, not possible with largergroups. Peer and collaborative learning are considered to be criticalelements in effective learning and the students participating in thisproject indicated a strong preference for this approach to learning Thevirtual faculty retained a direct link between teacher and student andbetween students. This encouraged the direct probing and questioning whichis crucial in senior level studies. Additionally, smaller group sizesbetter support the redesign of curriculum necessary for effective use oftechnologies such as videoconferencing.

Students felt that lecturer familiarity with, and understandingof, videoconferencing as a method of delivering teaching and learning wasessential to the success of virtual faculties such as this. Studentscommented that they least preferred videoconferenced classes where thelecture was the major teaching and learning activity. In other wordsstudents find the talking head presentation to be undesirable. Thisfinding is not a new one (Commeaux, 1995; Schiller & Mitchell, 1993).As already indicated, most students, particularly those who have hadprevious exposure to videoconferencing, quickly recognise its capacity toallow for interactive learning and generally express a preference for this.This sentiment is supported by other research (Schiller & Mitchell,1993; Musial & Kampmueller, 1996; Klease, Andrews & Druskovich,1996).

All students commented that staff needed to develop new skills to usethis medium effectively. The need for staff development in usingvideoconferencing and other communications technologies is one stronglysupported by proponents of educational technologies such as Bates (1995),and Laurilard,(1993). Laurilard, in particular, notes thatvideoconferencing lends itself to a lecture format and considerable effortis required to rethink teaching and learning for this medium. Staff need both time to develop newskills and understanding as well as professional support such aseducational design assistance to help them exploit the characteristics andstrengths and weaknesses of these new environments. Further to thiscomment, the evaluations demonstrated that the more staff used this mediumthe more competent they became, particularly when they adapted theirteaching style to a more interactive one. This was also a finding ofprevious research by Klease, Andrews and Druskovich (1996).

The observations of the classes indicated that familiarity with themedium helped the students to be relaxed and participate in this teachingand learning environment. This observation was endorsed by the students inthe focus group sessions who commented that the more they were familiarwith the medium, the less of an issue it was for them. The familiarity alsomade them feel more at ease in participating and interacting with groups atother sites. Burke, Lundin and Daunt (1997) also found that studentsquickly adapted to the medium and appreciated the benefits it offered forinteracting and communicating. Further to becoming familiar with thetechnology, there is also a need to prepare students for new teaching andlearning techniques. Many students who have experienced the traditionallecturer/tutorial mode of learning may have little experience with moreinteractive approaches to learning and need to develop skills in these newlearning environments, as well as be provided with a clear understanding ofwhat is expected.

All students strongly endorsed the use of videoconferencing to create avirtual faculty, although there were differences in how the studentsperceived the class. Students from both Darwin and Hobart expressed astrong interest in getting to know the other students. They wanted to feellike a whole class and to know the students individually on a personalbasis. Students at Deakin felt that this familiarisation was unimportant.They viewed the class as a short-term event and felt no need to personalisethe interaction between students. They were, however, quite at ease insharing ideas and discussing issues with class members, regardless oflocation. This lack of need to feel part of a virtual class possibly arisesfrom Deakin students’ considerable previous experiences andinvolvement in cross-campus teaching and learning activities usingvideoconferencing.

On the other hand, all groups of students expressed the need forfamiliarity with the lecturer and wanted to be recognised as individualsrather than just identified as a location. It was requested that sites notbe referred to as the Darwin students or the Deakin students.Students further commented that if they knew the lecturer they feltconsiderably more at ease with interacting, asking questions and generallyparticipating in the teaching and learning sessions. Again, this is inagreement with other findings (eg Bourdeau, Oueillet and Gauthier, 1998).Where it was not possible for lecturers to visit students they suggestedthat other types of ice breaking activities, such as informal get to knowyou sessions through videoconferencing would at least create some level ofmutual understanding, easing the way for more class-based interaction.

The students need to be personally recognised by lecturers was also seenas an important issue by staff involved in the project. One staff membercommented that in order to develop an "effective teacher-studentrelationship, each student must be recognised and treated as an individual,not a member of some mass audience ... and therefore requires more efforton the part of the teacher". This also underscores the importance ofstaff development. The sense of having a class was one that some lecturersexperienced difficulties with. The normal noise and general activity thatgoes on in a face-to-face classroom is noticeably absent and one lecturerdescribed this as teaching into a void. He found it difficult to gauge where the students were at and to adjust his teachingaccordingly. Other participants in the project also echoed this sentiment.This could also be seen as an example of the need to change teaching andlearning activities to better fit the mode of delivery.

Collaborative projects such as this provide an additional aspect ofstaff development. These projects enable staff to share ideas and currentthinking which feeds back to the students. As this knowledge andinformation is coming from a broader base than a single lecturer thestudents’ learning environment is enhanced. Exposure to differentexperts and a variety of teaching styles means that staff will becomecognisant with a range of different techniques that can be usedsuccessfully in their own teaching environments for these and otherstudents.

This project provided an excellent opportunity for staff to extend ordevelop their skills in videoconferencing teaching and learning. Thisenvironment, like most technologically mediated environments is a new one,requiring a different approach to teaching and learning than that used inmost traditional, face-to-face Chemistry teaching and learningenvironments. While some staff involved in the project had usedvideoconferencing for teaching and learning activities on previousoccasions, for others it was a new experience. Those with previousexperience gained greater expertise, understanding and confidence in usingthe medium, while those new to using videoconferencing had the opportunityto develop their skills in a supportive environment, using constructivefeedback from both staff and students to refine their teaching and learningstrategies.

The students and staff from the various universities involved in theproject demonstrated high levels of willingness to take on the duties andresponsibilities required to establish the virtual faculty. This could beseen as a reflection of the benefits they perceived in participating insuch an activity. Students demonstrated (and expressed) a willingness toendure inconvenient times and timetable clashes in order to participate inwhat they considered a unique and valuable opportunity to broaden theireducational understanding of their discipline. Staff were enthusiastic inattempting to meet the learning needs of both on-site and remote students.This included offering additional tutorial support to that originallyallocated. Additionally, staff were concerned with the need to get to knowremote students as individual class members. Both staff and students fromparticipating institutions acknowledged the enhancement of teaching andlearning opportunities provided by such virtual faculties.

One area of comment by staff was the need for long-term forwardplanning. The need for sharing of resources, identifying course offerings,staff availability and complex timetabling issues requires considerableforward planning (preferably 12 months in advance). In the case of thisproject, staff felt that the short time frames created difficulties inidentifying suitable subjects for offer thus limiting the choices availableto students.

The reflections from staff, along with the informal discussions,confirmed that such ventures also require high level support frominstitutional management if they are to be successful. The sharing ofresources such as videoconferencing, which are often in high demand, aswell as timetabling across a number of institutions, can be problematic.Success of these projects requires institutions to place these ventureshigh on their strategic priorities and to make available the resourcesnecessary to ensure successful outcomes. Staff also agreed that theseventures required considerable collaboration at the day to day level.Agreement on course content, accreditation, assessment and credit value isessential if these kinds of activities are to succeed. It was felt that thesuccess of this particular project related directly to the high levels ofcollaboration and cooperation at all levels within the participating institutions.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The project was successful in establishing a virtualfaculty and demonstrated that such an approach does provide a range ofbenefits to both staff and students. Students had the opportunity toenhance their learning through a wider variety of course offerings andopportunities to learn from a wider group of peers. Staff benefited fromthe opportunities to develop their skills in teaching with technology andalso through broadening their professional knowledge through interactionwith a wider range of colleagues.

In developing learning environments such as this thefollowing guidelines are recommended—

• A long lead time is required (at least twelvemonths) for planning, allocation of resources and adequate development ofthe project.
  
• In order for these ventures to be successful in thelonger term, they need to be in line with the strategic directions andpriorities of participating institutions.
  
• It is important to develop collaborative links atall levels of the organisations that have involvement in theactivities.

While the numbers involved in the project were relatively small,this concept, if adapted across several regional and remote universitiesand for a range of disciplines, could provide enhancement of the learningprogram for significant numbers of students.

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledgethe support of CUTSD funds for the development and completion of thisproject.

References

Bourdeau, J., Ouellet, M., & Goutheir, R. (1998).Interactivity in Videoconferenced-based Telepresentations. inProceedings of ED-Media/ED-TELECOM 98 World Conference on EducationalMultimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on EducationalTelecommunications. Freiberg, Germany.

Comeaux, P. (1995). "The impact of an interactive distancelearning network on classroom communication" CommunicationEducation, V. 44.

Schiller, J.,& Mitchell, J. (1993). Interacting at adistance: staff and students perceptions of teaching and learning viavideoconferencing. The Australian Journal of Educational Technology 9(1). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet9/schiller.html