T. Craig Montgomerie, Valerie Irvine, and Mike Davenport

Abstract

http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/~CraigM/
http://www.ualberta.ca/~virvine/intro.htm
http://www.fvsd.ab.ca/

Since its inception, the instructional techniques and even the course content of distance education (DE) courses have been constrained by the speed and quality of student / instructor interaction. For over a hundred years, DE was limited by the speed that the local postal service could deliver correspondence lessons. For the past 20 years, two approaches, which use very different technologies, have dominated how DE has been delivered in developed countries: 1) audio conferencing and compressed video conferencing have been used for synchronous delivery, and 2) the Internet and its progeny, the World Wide Web, have been used for asynchronous delivery. Both of these mechanisms are primarily distributed to rural DE users over the Plain Old Telephone System (POTS). In some cases, the quality of synchronous delivery was increased through multiplexing POTS circuits. In order to provide a rich multimedia experience to DE users, systems such as the Adaptive Multimedia Education Enabler (Montgomerie et al, 1998) would forecast student needs and then trickle data through low bandwidth networks to a remote server so that lessons would be available locally when the student needed them.

Even though some authors (e.g., Wynne, 1997) note that limited research has been conducted in this area, there are strong criticisms of the use of technology in K-12 distance education in both the academic and popular literature. For example, Steinberg (2000) discusses the use of the Internet to teach high school DE courses and reports that “of the 600 students in 28 states who enrolled in at least one of the company's online Advanced Placement courses in the last school year, two-thirds did not complete enough of the course work to take the final exam.” Steinberg then relates the experiences of two students: one who dropped out because “he could not summon the stamina to continue” without a teacher standing in front of him, and another student who “finished the same course, but two weeks late, frustrated by countless technical glitches that often prevented him from logging onto the Web for hours.” Litke (1999) presents a number of weaknesses that teachers identified in a case study of a virtual school: “the loss of ‘teachable moments,’ the absence of relationships between both students and teachers and students and students, the loss of discussion and stories and the adherence to deadlines” (p. 39). Chen and Willits (1999), in a study of 121 learners’ experiences with videoconferencing, identify a number of areas where videoconference course designers should expand their capabilities to include, for example, both out-of-class face-to-face, and asynchronous electronic communication.

The criticisms of the use of technology in DE seem to centre around two different issues: 1) limitations in the technology, or 2) the use of a single technology (e.g., either videoconferencing or Web-based Instruction (WBI). The first of these is a technical issue while the second is a design issue.

Fortunately, the landscape of communication technology is changing. The convergence of voice and data technologies has been accompanied by political competitiveness to promise ubiquitous high bandwidth Internet delivery. The United States has invested heavily in the Next Generation Internet (NGI) or Internet II. Canada has countered by developing CA*net 3, which it identifies as “the world's first national optical Internet” (CANARIE Inc., 2000). Furthermore, Industry Canada has announced that a “National Broadband Task Force will be established to advise the Government of Canada on how best make high-speed broadband Internet services available to businesses and residents in all Canadian communities by the year 2004” (Industry Canada, October 16, 2000). In our own province, the Alberta government has announced the creation of the Alberta Supernet which will provide “equal access for equal cost to the highest quality high-speed broadband access to the Internet … to every hospital, school, library and government facility in the province within three years” (Alberta Innovation and Science, November 2, 2000). One only has to read a few of the articles posted on the Advanced Research and Development Network Operations Center (ARDNOC) list service (2000) to see that the opportunities offered by the leasing of dark fibre in both rural and urban communities, and the tremendous cost savings that can be accrued, mean that school systems will be operating gigabit networks within a few years.

The Fort Vermilion School Division (FVSD), located in the remote, Northwest corner of Alberta, is larger than Denmark but has a K-12 student population of approximately 3,500 students. FVSD is a leader in the delivery of DE using both synchronous and asynchronous methods. The University of Alberta and the FVSD have formed a partnership to specify and implement a state of the art DE system combining both synchronous and asynchronous delivery. We decided to take a radical approach: rather than design a DE system based up on bandwidth constraints, we chose to design it based upon good instructional models, desired features and excellent course content so that remote students would be provided with an educational experience comparable to or even better than that experienced by their peers in traditional, urban classrooms.

We are building a pilot system that we hope will prove our concept of distance education, which is create a “virtual presence learning environment” that provides remote students with an educational experience that is equivalent to, or better than, that provided to their peers in traditional, urban classrooms. We are working on the premise that the technology needed to meet our specification would be available at the time of implementation, and that even if the capital equipment and telecommunications costs are very high for our pilot test, they will likely drop exponentially in the next few years.

We feel that students are active partners in the learning process (Jacobson & Mark, 1995; Silberman, 1996) and that students and teachers should be able to interact with each other and with information and instructional material in many different ways. This means that both synchronous and asynchronous facilities must be available. We will implement technology that makes teachers’ job easier, allowing them to interact with students in a familiar manner, but also provides facilities that allow them to investigate new ways of teaching and learning.

The first model of instruction that must be supported is the traditional classroom model that some people refer to as the “teacher centered” model. Educators such as Silberman (1996) and Jonassen (2000) suggest that there are much better ways to encourage students to learn than through teacher-centered models. The reality is that most students have learned in a system based upon the traditional teacher-centered, classroom model. There are many excellent teachers who rely upon this model of teaching and who would not wish to, or would likely be unable to change their methods of instruction (Matthews, 2000). Hence our system must be able to support an environment where the majority of the communication is from the teacher with the teacher presenting the bulk of the material. Students should be able to ask questions, and to interact with the material that the teacher has presented as well as to be able to present material for teacher and other students to view and comment upon. We have examined computer systems that allow such interaction, including traditional shared workspace computer system. We prefer an interactive whiteboard such as that from Smart Technologies (http://www.smarttech.com/) which allow computer presentations with hand written notations to be shared between different locations. We feel these are much more familiar and easier to use, and allow a more natural interaction between teachers and students who are located remotely from each other. We would like to extend this facility so that the audio stream and the interactive whiteboard interactions could be stored for later asynchronous use, by being able to incorporate stored interactive whiteboard into a shared workspace environment.

The second model of instruction that we wish to support is that generally referred to as constructivism, which:

is concerned with the process of how learners construct knowledge. How learners construct knowledge depends on what they already know, which depends on the kinds of experiences that they have had, how they have organized those experiences into knowledge structures, and the beliefs they use to interpret objects and events that they encounter in the world. (Jonassen, 2000, p.12)

Jonassen goes on to claim that “we construct our own reality through interpreting experiences in the world” and that rather than understanding the world the way the teacher does, learners must “think about what the teacher tells them and interpret it in terms of their own experiences, beliefs, and knowledge” (p.12). He encourages us to create environments in which learners can actively construct their own knowledge, and argues for the use of computers as Mindtools: “computer-based tools and learning environments that have been adapted or developed to function as intellectual partners with the learner in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher order learning” (p.9). Many authors such as Morrison, Lowther and DeMeulle (1999), Roblyer and Edwards (2000), and Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) have written extensively on integrating technology into the classroom using a constructivist perspective. Through a collaborative effort, we will prepare both student teachers at the University of Alberta (UofA) and existing teachers in FVSD to use such a model in their distance instruction.

A third model of instruction is constructionism, which is a derivative of constructivism. In constructionism, students “are actively engaged in designing knowledge rather than interpreting and encoding it” and teachers should encourage students to become “designers rather than learners and knowledge constructors rather than knowledge users” (Jonassen, 2000, p. 206). Hypermedia is a particularly useful tool for such an instructional model and authors like Davies and Carbonaro (2000) report case studies of successful implementations of courses based upon this model. Recently, there has been an emergence of an emphasis on the storage, indexing and re-use of educational objects. Projects such as SCORM: Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (Advanced Distributed Learning Network, 2000) or Belle: Broadband Enabled Livelong Learning Environment (Netera Inc., 2000) hope to create archives of reusable multimedia objects that can be stored for retrieval and use by students in their own multimedia productions.

A final model we wish to implement is the use of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) with distance students. While authors like Jonassen (2000) claim that CAI has failed and is inappropriate for instructional purposes, Schute and Psotka (1996) point out that

[o]ne of the major problems with this whole debate over situated cognition versus traditional information processing models is that the former position simply has not tested its underlying hypotheses at this time, while the latter has enjoyed decades of solid research. (p. 586)

The UofA and the Alberta Government have a long history in research on, and the production of, CAI. We will examine how well designed CAI can be a useful part of any distance education system.

A number of very expensive “full motion video classrooms” have been implemented at the post-secondary level. We were excited by the network set up by the Cascade Consortium in North Central Washington State (Matthews, 2000), which brings MPEG-2 video classrooms to K-12 education. A site visit to the Cascade Consortium in April 2000 confirmed that the basics of the technology we need to use for the synchronous part of our vision had been successfully implemented in a school setting. We have identified a number of features that we would like to see in our “ideal” system.

A virtual presence instructional environment will be created in each of the five high schools in FVSD and at the UofA, which is located 800-km southeast of Fort Vermilion. This will include:

• Up to six classrooms may be connected at one time.

• A simple GUI will allow control of which classrooms are connected.

• Each classroom will contain a data projector to display a) the image of the instructor, b) a “split screen” image of the students at all the other classrooms, c) students at one particular classroom, or d) 3-dimensional images.

• Each classroom will contain a monitor so that the instructor may view students in remote classrooms.

• Each classroom will contain a large display, interactive electronic whiteboard (e.g., SmartBoard™). Computer output, digitized images, and hand written comments on one board will be reproduced on connected boards.

• A simple GUI will allow either centralized or individualized control of displays in all classrooms.

• Instruction can originate from any classroom or from a remote instructor connected to the Internet.

• Video and audio will be “broadcast quality” (MPEG-2).

• A centralized video server will allow the storage and display of full-screen MPEG-2 streaming video and the archiving of educational objects for student/teacher use.

• Each classroom will contain networked computers that can be used to drive the interactive electronic whiteboard, allow students to collaborate using workgroup software, access the video server, etc.

Computers in the 17 schools and in students’ homes will have authenticated connection to the FVSD network. The intention is that students will be able to connect to the FVSD network to access lessons “after the fact,” yet still feel as if they were “virtually present.” A number of more traditional asynchronous tools will also be available, including:

• FVSD will work with suppliers to make higher speed connections available to student homes.

• A simple GUI will allow students to access the different services available on the FVSD network.

• Students may use the same workgroup software on their home computers as in the classrooms.

• The FVSD network will be connected to the Internet, with authentication controlling different levels of access.

• The “important” streams from the synchronous lectures will be stored on the video-server.

• Students will be able to review the synchronous lectures from the video-server, with “VCR-type” control.

• Students will be able to communicate with each other, with the instructors, submit assignments, use Web-based discussion groups, access asynchronous courses (e.g., Web-based Instruction courses), etc.

• Parents will have a separate authentication on the FVSD network to allow them to communicate with teachers and school officials, use the Internet, take Adult education courses, etc.

The announcement of the Alberta Supernet (Alberta Innovation and Science, November 2, 2000) has left implementation of our project a little unsettled. We had originally designed an 80 megabit radio network that connected all schools (with the exception of a few schools that refused for religious reasons). A combination of different private and public funds had been proposed to pay for this network. Initial negotiations with Alberta Innovation and Science have led us to believe that all five of our high schools in FVSD will have fibre optic connection, and in the very near future.

One of the concerns has always been the connection between the UofA (which is connected to CA*net 3) in Edmonton and FVSD. We are negotiating to have four fibre strands in the Alberta Supernet designated for research use. The Netera Alliance, a not-for-profit corporation of universities, research institutions, government, and small and large private-sector companies would use this to extend its gigabit research network throughout Alberta. The UofA/FVSD link would be a major link in this network.

An examination of the current academic and vendor literature indicates that all the equipment and most of the software for what we propose to implement are available “off the shelf.” A prototype system should be installed early in 2001. We hope to have funding in place to implement the full system in mid 2001, with the first trial class to be delivered in September 2001. Three big issues must still be addressed: 1) how do we stitch the various products together into an easy-to-use, integrated, delivery system, 2) how can we prepare teachers and students to use this system effectively, and 3) is this a cost effective way to deliver distance education? These issues promise to keep us engaged for the immediate future.

Advanced Research and Development Network Operations Center (ARDNOC) (2000). CA*net 3 News Archive. Retrieved August 31, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.canet3.net/frames/canet3newsarchive.html

Advanced Distributed Learning Network (2000). Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (SCORM). Retrieved August 31, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.adlnet.org/Scorm/scorm_index.cfm

Alberta Innovation and Science (November 2, 2000). SUPERNET to connect communities to the 21st century at warp speed). Retrieved November 20, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200011/9894.html

CANARIE Inc. (2000). CA*net 3. Retrieved August 31, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/canet3.html

Chen, Y & Willits, F. (1999). Dimensions of educational transactions in a videoconferencing learning environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 45-59).

Davies, J. D. & Carbonaro, M. (2000). Developing Web-mediated instruction for teaching multimedia tools in a constructionist paradigm. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 6(3), 243-266.

Industry Canada (October 16, 2000) Government of Canada Announces Commitment to Bringing High-speed Broadband Internet Services to all Canadian Communities. Retrieved November 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/Welcomeic.nsf/261ce500dfcd7259852564820068dc6d/85256779007b79ee8525697a00468c17

Jacobson, T.E. & Mark, B.L. (1995). Teaching in the information age: Active learning techniques to empower students. Reference Librarian, 51-52, 105-20.

Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking (2^{nd Ed.).} Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L. & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Litke, C.D. (1998). Virtual schooling at the middle grades: A case study. Journal of Distance Education. 13(2), 33-50.

Matthews, D.P. (2000). High bandwidth video collaboration in five rural K-12 school districts (Cascade Consortium) in North Central Washington. In PTC 2000: A New Vision for the 21st Century. Papers presented at the Pacific Telecommunications Council’s 22nd Annual Conference. Honolulu: Pacific Telecommunications Council. January 2000. [CD-ROM}.

Montgomerie, T.C., Harapnuik, D , Keenan, T., Chugh, U., Kirek, I., Pfoh, H., Smith, N., Udey, N. (1998). "Development of a Delivery System for Multimedia Instruction over the Internet: The Adaptive Multimedia Education Enabler (AMEE)" in D. Wedemeyer & R. Nickelson Coping with Convergence - The Future is Now. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Pacific Telecommunications Conference PTC '98. Honolulu, 158-169.

Morrison, G.R., Lowther, D.L., & DeMeulle, L. (1999). Integrating computer technology into the classroom. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Netera, Inc. (2000). Belle: Broadband Enabled Livelong Learning Environment. Retrieved August 31, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.netera.ca/belle/

Roblyer, M.D. & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Schute, V.J. and Psotka, J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present and future. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 570-600). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.

Steinberg, J. (July 7, 2000). “As Teacher in the Classroom, Internet Needs Fine-Tuning” New York Times.

Wynne, S. (1997). Open schools, open minds: An overview of virtual schooling in North America and Europe. Vancouver, BC: Open School.

Back to top of page     Back to the sessions page