Plass, Chun, Mayer and Leutner (1998) report that a "generative theory of multimedia learning that assumes that learners actively select relevant verbal and visual information, organize the information into coherent mental representations, and integrate these newly constructed visual and verbal representations with one another" (p. 25). Plass, et al. (1998) tested this theory by presenting English-speaking college students who were currently enrolled in a German language course to read a story in German presented by a computer program. The program presented an array of choices for the students. Specifically, for "key words in the story, students could choose to see a translation on the screen in English (i.e., verbal annotation) or view a picture or video clip representing the word (i.e., visual annotation), or both" (Plass, et al., 1998; p. 25). The researcher report that their findings were consistent with the direction of the generative theory of multimedia learning they tested.
Aragon, Johnson and Shaik (2002) investigated the effects of learning style preference and student success in both online and on-ground learning environments. This is a qualitative survey in which the researchers surveyed students in both broad environments while also gathering information about individual students' learning styles. The researchers found little difference in text-based material.
Once again using the same lightning and braking system information used in previous studies, Mayer and Moreno (1998) provided student subjects either with concurrent onscreen text explanations of the processes they were seeing, or provided another group with auditory narration of what the students were seeing. In every case, the study subjects were able to integrate "words and pictures more easily when the words are presented auditorily rather than visually" (Mayer and Moreno, 1998; p. 312). The researchers concluded their findings to be consistent "with a dual-processing model of working memory consisting of separate visual and auditory channels" (Mayer and Moreno, 1998; p. 312).
Addressing the other side of the same issue, Moreno and Mayer (2000a) later conducted an experiment designed to determine whether the same effect would be found when focusing on the auditory aspect of the previous study. The researchers sought to discover "under what conditions the addition of on-screen text would facilitate the learning of a narrated scientific multimedia explanation" (Moreno and Mayer, 2002a; p. 156). Using the same lightning and car braking system examples as before, Moreno and Mayer (2000a) presented words both auditorily only as well as auditorily and visually. They found that students' comprehension of the material was greater when "words were presented auditorily and visually rather than auditorily only" (Moreno and Mayer, 2002a; p. 156) when no other visual cues were present. Moreno and Mayer (2000a) explain their results with a "dual-processing model of working memory, which has implications for the design of multimedia instruction" (p. 156). This larger and more comprehensive study confirms preliminary findings that the same researcher discovered earlier (Moreno and Mayer, 1999) in which they found that "students learned better when verbal input was presented auditorily as speech rather than visually as text. The results support 2 cognitive principles of multimedia learning" (Moreno and Mayer, 1999; p. 358).
Moreno and Mayer (2002) later added the kinetic component to their efforts to discover the relationship between auditory and visual receipt of information. This time they used college students studying botany using a multimedia game. Some of the students accessed the game at a stationary desktop display, while others accessed the game on a mobile device that allowed them to walk around as they played the game. Each group was presented with the same information, and in three forms: narration only, text only and a combination of the two. Students gained higher rates of learning with narration only than with text only; combining both narration and text produced results between the two qualities alone. Further, students learning at stationary displays exhibited greater learning and information retention than did those who were required to walk around while taking in the information (Moreno and Mayer, 2002).
Moreno and Mayer (2004) again used college botany students to retest their earlier findings regarding personalized vs neutral messages (Moreno and Mayer, 2000). In the 2004 study, the researchers confirmed their earlier findings: "Students learn more deeply from computer-based simulation games when an on-screen agent speaks to them in a personalized style rather than a nonpersonalized style" (Moreno and Mayer, 2004; p. 165).
These findings appear to be attributable to technology only, rather than to greatly different teaching styles and approaches. When comparing online and on-ground faculty in areas such as assessment practices, job satisfaction and opinions about their employers, there were few differences between online faculty members and on-ground faculty members. Only in the area of workload did the two groups greatly differ. The finding that online teachers were more likely to be satisfied with their workload than on-ground teachers was surprising (Bradburn, 2002). One of the perennial objections educators ostensibly have had to teaching in the electronic environment is that the workload must be heavier because of the inability in most situations to address more than only one student at a time. Some web conferencing programs and chat room options ease that inhibition, but it appears not to be an issue at all when the setting is true practice (Bradburn, 2002).
One factor that could be operational among these faculty members is that they are mentally and personally suited to the online environment. Dr. Gavriel Salomon is quoted as saying that e-learning also demands maturity and discipline but also provides a ""wonderful solution, as he puts it, for students who want to learn wherever and whenever they want" (Expert in new media, 2002). When students have greater freedom of time - when to access an online class, how much time to spend there, etc. - then Dr. Salomon believes that "Knowledge becomes a fluid, available thing, no more a commodity to own and store, but something to be accessed" (Expert in new media, 2002).
Known for his pioneering work in distance learning as well as in peace education, Dr. Salomon explains that online learning is still in its infancy, that he sees a grand and impressive future for it. Dr. Salomon says, "One of the major opportunities I see in e-learning is that it can bring together people with expertise and information from a variety of sources all around the world," he says. "We're not there yet, but there's the possibility of achieving enormous success in dealing with issues of all kinds" (Expert in new media, 2002).
Salomon (1990) predicted years ago that the advent of e-learning would require a dramatic shift in perception, a paradigm shift that even now appears to be progressing quite well. Dr. Salomon (1990) suggested that the individual forms a "partnership" with the computer during those times that the computer is acting as an educational agent for the individual. He envisioned deep effects by computers, "whereby such partnership leaves durable and generalizable cognitive residues later on" (Salomon, 1990; p. 26). One of the reasons for the lasting quality of these effects is that the computer will require its human user to stretch his skills in response to "novel cognitive requirements" (Salomon, 1990; p. 26) that computer involvement would require in the future. It appears that Dr. Salomon's predictions and perceptions were quite accurate.
Reinhardt (1999) describes a process all too familiar. As a college professor, Reinhardt (1999) made an individual determination to include greater use of technology-based resources in her college psychology classes. The process began with adapting lectures to PowerPoint® presentations, later extending to include other commercial software applications. Reinhardt (1999) states that she has no empirical evidence supporting her beliefs regarding the superiority of this standardized and more technological approach to teaching, but she does offer anecdotal evidence: in the semester preceding conversion of a standard lecture to a PowerPoint® format, she administered pre- and post-tests to students. She repeated the testing during the following semester after converting the lecture's format to find greater gains among those classes.
Machuca (2004) describes the experiences with distance education at College of the Sequoias (COS), a community (i.e., focused on adult learners) college in California. In all other respects, COS "far exceeds its neighbors in student success" (Machuca, 2004; p. 81) even though its demographic composition is virtually identical to other community colleges in the California system. "Success" is defined as completion of a course with a grade of A, B or C. "In the spring 2003 semester, COS reported 22,629 successful student completions out of 32,291 attempts (the average student enrolls in 3 classes) for a success rate of 70.08%" (Machuca, 2004; p. 81) in its traditional, on-ground classes. The success rate of COS' distance education classes, however, was much lower, with "233 successes out of 500 attempts for a success rate of only 46.6% - a difference of 24.2 points" (Machuca, 2004; p. 81).
The difference between on-ground and online class success rates provided the impetus for Machuca's (2004) research. The author sought to determine whether the apparent difference was "real," and also to "identify ways of decreasing that difference without reducing the rigor of" (Machuca, 2004; p. 81) COS' distance education classes. The average success rate in the larger California community college system showed similar differences, though not as pronounced as at COS. Statewide, "the average success rate for DE [distance education] classes is 54% where the average success rates for F2F [face-to-face] classes is 64%" (Machuca, 2004; p. 81).
Outside of academia, the success rate of distance education classes is even lower. Jun (2005) reports that one author "argues that e-learning courses without face-to-face classroom training have low success rates--only about 10 percent of employees complete online-only courses" (p. 229). This percentage arises from the number of employees completing company-directed online training programs and individual courses, but the leading identified reason directly applies to academic programs as well: "The 'anytime, anywhere' nature of at-your-laptop learning all too easily becomes 'no time, nowhere'" (Jun, 2005; p. 229). Moshinskie (2002) argues that the quality issues of several years ago equate with ancient history in e-learning models. During the same time, education in general has been called to account for its quality and effectiveness in terms of results as well. Many public school districts have returned to some of the old basics, and Moshinskie (2002) tells online educators that the same lessons apply to them. He describes the "ROPES" system, which is an acronym for review, overview, present, exercise and summarize (Moshinskie, 2002). This is nothing more than good educational technique, and one to which many public and private educators have returned since early studies were done in the late 1990s. It also is an approach that lends itself well to self-directed learning programs such as corporate educational videos.
Moshinskie (2002) argues that the quality issues of several years ago equate with ancient history in e-learning models. During the same time, education in general has been called to account for its quality and effectiveness in terms of results as well. Many public school districts have returned to some of the old basics, and Moshinskie (2002) tells online educators that the same lessons apply to them. He describes the "ROPES" system, which is an acronym for review, overview, present, exercise and summarize (Moshinskie, 2002). This is nothing more than good educational technique, and one to which many public and private educators have returned since early studies were done in the late 1990s. It also is an approach that lends itself well to self-directed learning programs such as corporate educational videos.
Part of the problem with quality in the early years of e-learning was that there was no standardization of approach. Further, many organizations set out to create an electronic learning environment without first planning well. At AIU Online, the school occasionally has technical problems with the site, losing transcripts of a few real-time chat sessions and sometimes being overwhelmed with the amount of traffic that the site is being asked to support. The school is aware of these technical issues of course, and on occasion assignment due dates have been extended because of technical problems close to the Saturday midnight due time for all assignments in all classes. There is variability among classes in terms of instructors' style, but the primary form that classes take is highly uniform and students know precisely what to expect from each electronic option available to them. In many ways, Weigel's (2000) prediction of standardization has come to pass, thanks in large part to the emergence of LMS.
The class format at AIU Online represents the best of LMS. Each currently enrolled student has a "home" page from which the student can access all active classes. These are all of the same form: permanent pages contain syllabi, assignments and a link to "classroom materials," which contain a multimedia presentation of each week's assigned reading, constituting a slide-based lecture.
All aspects course development are integrated. Course developers - rather than instructors - arrange for specialized texts and write unit assignments based on those texts. They design the multimedia presentations that support and reinforce the material presented in the text. Individual instructors hold a minimum of two weekly chat sessions; read and monitor required discussion board postings; and grade weekly individual projects. They maintain email contact with individual students, answer questions right away and always can be contacted by telephone. Though Weigel's (2000) observation of lack of "richness" likely was valid in describing early programs, it is not applicable to intense programs such as those at AIU Online or the University of Phoenix.
LMS, in effect, allow online course developers to avoid needing to reinvent the wheel in order to get a degree program online and live. At $30,000 for an MBA, Weigel's (2000) prediction of free-or-nearly-so is far from becoming reality, but the standardization that LMS allows frees developers to concentrate much more on content than on technicalities such as assured access to the classroom site at any time of day or night.
Dobbs (2002) labels the LMS as a technology that is still emerging, "a vehicle that is used to automate the administration of online training programs. The system can register users and track courses, record data on a student's progress, and forward reports" (p. 52). The LMS is seen as being amazingly expensive, averaging in 2001 "$550,000 for 8,000 users" (Dobbs, 2002; p. 52). As is the case with nearly every other type of new technology, however, that average cost is declining rapidly. Chapman (2002) describes the quest for an LMS by a company with $150,000 to spend and 250 learners. Request for proposal (RFP) responses came in at much lower figures, however. One company bid only $12,000 for the project; the winner of the LMS contract bid $30,000.
As costs continue to decrease and LMS providers take on ever-smaller clients, it is likely that LMSs will make greater use of the "learning object," which is a "chunk of information (a module) that can be used simultaneously in more than one place or context (learning environment)" (Everything You've Wanted to Know, 2002).
The systems can be expected to gain in importance in the future, as the need for training and re-training grows and as the economies of developed nations continue to shift from manufacturing to services. Individuals will need to be retrained, and in many cases, they will be responsible for their own learning and assessment. Multimedia, computer-based systems allow such an approach, and at minimal cost to the entity providing the information.
Early complaints of lack of quality and the illusion to the "diploma mill" existence of many early online programs are giving way to real quality and meaningful degrees being obtained by millions. Some schools, such as Duke and Cornell, have been quality-oriented from the beginning, but those that began as being only profit-oriented now can use the LMS approach to implement quality as well.
Web conferencing is the current and future incarnation of the onsite, physical meeting of individuals for a specific purpose. Whether that purpose is to discuss the prior quarter's sales figures; collaborate on an engineering project; or conduct a class comprised of geographically-dispersed students, web conferencing enables all of those who need to be present to fully participate in the event regardless of where they may be physically located at the time of the meeting. All that is required is a computer and an Internet connection, plus web conferencing ability either through a web conferencing service or web conferencing software installed on each participant's computer.
In a sense, web conferencing can be seen as the logical extension of email, one that involves more than one person. Practically, however, web conferencing is much more than being able to communicate with multiple individuals in real time. Whereas email is limited to text only, or perhaps with still pictures attached, web conferencing adds - at minimum - a video component so that meeting participants can see each other as they are communicating. Some web conferencing packages such as Elluminate include audio capabilities as well, bringing the web conference to the point that it mimics the physical meeting in all respects except physical proximity of meeting participants.
In business, web conferencing can accomplish all of the goals of a business trip undertaken for the purpose of discussing matters with individuals in the same or in other companies. In education, it can enable a true class meeting, negating any difficulties of wide geographical dispersion of students. The web conference greatly improves the isolationist disadvantages of online learning, but it still does not mimic the actual class meeting experienced by those geographically close enough that they are able to gather in the same physical space. For the present, however, the web conference provides the best approximation of that physical environment.
The web conference also can be seen as a legitimate extension of the Internet chat room (Biggs, 2004). Whether or not video capability is included in a specific meeting of online learners, the instructor is able to call on individuals and to mediate discussion of current subject matter.
At least one online university, American InterContinental University (AIU), requires at least one group project within every class. The rationale is that the team concept is one that has been firmly entrenched in the business environment over the past several years, and those who hope to be successful in business will need to be able to work effectively within the team setting.
AIU provides a workspace for each group. The workspace includes a discussion board to which group members can post messages to which they also can attach files, and it provides a chat area at which group members can meet for real-time discussion of their project. It does not include any video or audio capability, however, qualities that could add greatly to the group experience and to the expediency with which group members could complete the task assigned to them.
Many online degree programs require similar group projects. The requirement is particularly common among business degree programs, and is especially prevalent in Master's degree programs. A single AIU group project in one of its MBA programs can require much time of the individuals involved. Though choosing meeting times workable for most of the group members, deciding what the final deliverable will be and assigning tasks to individual group members duplicates the function of corporate task groups, the ability to meet in real time with video and audio capabilities could greatly enhance the educational aspects of the experience as well as reduce the non-productive time required for attention to simple logistics. Arriving at the same destination - a finished, high-quality group project deliverable - through the use of web conferencing would have the effect of also giving group members a taste of the process as it occurs in the corporate setting, as well.
Alluded to above, the web conference enables the instructor to call on individual students during online, web-conferenced discussions. Those students who become confused with the subject matter or lose interest can be brought back to center by some well-placed questions directed to them by the instructor. The knowledge that this is likely to occur can serve to encourage the bored ones to pay closer attention to the discussion at hand.
Alternatively, web conferencing with video capability can provide the instructor with the bemused facial expression of the confused student. The instructor is then able to pursue the reasons underlying the confusion to clarify matters for that student and for others who may be questioning the same point.
The very nature of the common online educational experience is that despite institutions' best efforts, neither administration nor instructors can be absolutely certain that the individual posting work under a registered student's name is, indeed, that registered student. The anonymous nature of the typical chat room or discussion board application precludes testing in the manner typical in the standard on-ground classroom. Combined with a picture identification of students provided at the time of registration, web conferencing with video capabilities also serves to confirm the identities of those present for discussion or testing.
Specific implementation of the web conference depends on the type of web conference that the organization has chosen. As stated above, some applications to web conferencing point users to a server to which users gain access through user IDs and passwords, while others are software based and require that users access learner groups via the software made available for that specific purpose (Biggs, 2004). Implementation will depend on the type of approach to web conferencing that the organization has chosen to adopt.
The choice of product type will depend on the kinds of services and conditions that the organization is seeking in a web conferencing tool. As Biggs (2004) observes, "Many factors would lead an agency to a product-based solution, but other conditions would make a service-based solution more attractive." An organization wanting to discuss sensitive information through web conferencing would be well advised to choose a product-based approach, while one seeking to meet with non-repeating groups or individuals should choose a service-based approach. This rule of thumb would seem to indicate that educational efforts be service-based rather than product based, but such is not necessarily the case. Organizations offering degree programs or corporate trainers can arrange for participants to receive copies of the software used in the product-based approach. Some product-based providers of web conferencing software makes the software available online where users can download and install it on their own computers.
The concept of web conferencing is not a new one, but it is growing in popularity in large part because of the greater availability of broadband Internet connections. Products and services that have been in existence for several years are likely not to have all of the beneficial characteristics of newer products and services. Biggs (2004) notes that "IBM's Lotus Instant Messaging and Web Conferencing provides a feature-rich set of tools" easily integrated into existing infrastructures.
Microsoft Office Live Meeting is a service-based web conferencing application. It can be accessed by browser, as long as the browser being used is either Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator. The service does not support other browsers such as Mozilla or Apple's Safari (Biggs, 2004). As is the case with other service-based web conferencing applications, "presenters can show slides, including slides that enable application viewing, desktop sharing and Web content" (Biggs, 2004).
Interwise is another service-based web conferencing tool. It promises customers the "ability to deliver unlimited data, video and voice conferencing to the extended enterprise for a fixed price" (Qiagen Chooses Interwise, 2004), regardless of how widely dispersed that enterprise is. One of the most attractive points of Interwise is that it provides the ability to use voice over IP (VoIP) "without requiring major infrastructure or telephone upgrades" (Interwise Launches Groundbreaking Enterprise Conferencing Solution at Gartner Symposium/ITxpo 2004., 2004), making it highly attractive for business.
WebEx is a well-known service-based web conferencing application. Boudreau (2004) reports that California-based WebEx "is valued at $1 billion and is adding about 100 new employees a quarter" (p. ITEM04151014). It has become a highly popular web conferencing application over the past several years. Service based, WebEx provides many of the features that web conference users rate as most useful. It operates within a global network that clients use for their web conferences. Companies pay for "ports," or "seats, at meetings, and for minutes used. WebEx provides all the infrastructure, so companies do not have to buy software or worry about internal tech support" (Boudreau, 2004; p. ITEM04151014). The WebEx system allows for video and audio capabilities, as well the exchange of "complex data, such as spreadsheets or Power-Point slides Leaders of the online meetings can mark up spreadsheets the way TV sports commentator John Madden marks up a football field" (Boudreau, 2004; p. ITEM04151014).
After exploring Macromedia Breeze®, one WebEx user commented that Breeze could be characterized as "WebEx on steroids" (Breeze Live, 2004). There are several levels at which organizations can use Breeze, but a feature common to all is that it operates "through Macromedia Flash, which is installed on nearly all PCs today. No software download or plug-in installation required" (Breeze Live, 2004). Users are able to incorporate PowerPoint® slides, Flash-oriented products, digital video and other visual media into online meetings.
A feature not common to all web conferencing tools by any means is the whiteboard that can be used just as the whiteboard in a physical meeting room. Breeze also contains a library in which users can store content to be used in other applications as well. Neither the company nor reviewers speak in specifics in terms of price, but Stevens (2004) notes that Breeze is amazingly expensive, so much so that it is likely to remain in the corporate world only. Combining all of the best features of the various web conferencing tools available is Elluminate, a product-based web conferencing tool useful for business, but focusing much of its effort on learning situations either in higher education or in corporate training. Elluminate can be used as a service-based tool as well, through its online "Meeting Room." This space "features live two-way audio, text chat, and a whiteboard on which you can draw, show images and snapshots of your own computer screen" (Elluminate and LearningTimes, 2003). The company also offers a "standalone utility which allows Elluminate users to produce high resolution whiteboard content from PowerPoint presentations" (Note Board, 2004).
Unlike other web conferencing tools, Elluminate offers an online user's community dedicated to the exchange of ideas in using the product to its fullest potential. The effect is to provide software owners with more complete capabilities than perhaps the users would discover through their own efforts. An Elluminate recording chronicles milestones in the learning curve required by the software, and online sessions address specific topics such as reviewing users' best practices.
In all respects aside from one, the components of the web conference are identical in function to those of the conference taking place in a single physical location. Participants are "visible" for all other participants to see; presentation slides constitute the central visual component. Discussion of the slides and points raised by or in response to them is audible to everyone in attendance, and those with microphones attached to their computers are free to join the verbal discussion. Those without active microphones can ask questions and make comments in the "Direct Messaging" portion of the screen, where anyone involved in the meeting can enter a text message or ask a question regardless of whether they have a microphone accessible to them.
Symbols beneath the participants list enable anyone involved in the meeting to "raise a hand" to be called on for a turn to speak. The name of the person holding the floor at any given time is highlighted so that all others can identify who is speaking, and the speaker's name is listed at the bottom of the screen as well. When anyone is speaking, a microphone icon next to the speaker's name in the participant list is highlighted yellow. Again, all can quickly identify which of the meeting participants is speaking at any time.
The nature of the Elluminate environment is such that the speaker is able to provide even more slide-supported emphasis for specific points, in that the speaker is able to "write" on the slide being used in the current discussion.
Eluminate contains polling buttons used in response to a facilitator's question of the entire group, such as, "Can everyone hear me?" or "Is that point clear to everyone?" The polling feature provides another point at which the presenter can ensure that all involved are attentive and have not let their attention wander to other matters. In response to a polling question, each attendee is to click either the green check mark button signifying a "yes" answer, or s/he is to click a red "X" button signifying a negative answer. If the facilitator receives a negative response (i.e., "No, I can't hear you" or "No, it is not clear to me"), s/he can then retrace the comments of the last few minutes using another approach to explanation, or directly ask the respondent what it is that s/he does not understand.
This polling feature allows individual attendees to admit their confusion without announcing it to the entire group. Only the facilitator can see the results of individuals' polling choices, so one who is momentarily confused does not face a situation in which there is a long list of green check marks standing in contrast to his own, single red X. Other attendees know only that someone has indicated a negative response that needs to be addressed; they have no way of knowing which attendee has entered the negative response. This is valuable in many settings in that those less knowledgeable in a specific area of discussion can feel free to indicate that s/he is not fully understanding the material being discussed. The facilitator has the option of explaining the point immediately, or asking those who returned negative polling responses to meet for further clarification in another conference room after the current session has ended.
Online Degree facts page 4
