Collaboration Through IP Video-Conferencing for Improved Learning Object Development Peter Goldsworthy CLOE Project Manager

Background: CLOE has 17 partners: –the Universities of Ontario Canada –Started as just 8 Universities with common interest –Repository with Peer Reviewed LOs began working together 2-3 years ago eduSourceCanada grant for “Community Building”

Background (cont’d) IP Video-conferencing: 1 st : project between Waterloo & Brock (Applied Health Sciences) 2 nd : CLOE-wide invitation for institutional partnering by IP v/c for collaborative LO creation

Our Plan: Collaboration improves the end product; why not try collaborating over distances with video-conferencing Video-conferencing through conventional means is expensive Our research demonstrated that IP video- conferencing has a trade-off: quality of sound/video vs. cost reduction If bandwidth was acceptable, we could succeed If we could view each other’s work during the v/c, we would benefit

Our starting point: Eligibility for eduSource funding was dependant upon Community Building Community Building = 2 or more institutions collaborating on LO construction, evaluation &/or other co-work Partner institutions could be fellow Ontario Universities, colleges or learning institutions, or even those outside of Ontario (one partnership was a University, a Community College and a local School Board joining to evaluate LOs at 3 educational levels

Equipment we chose to use: VCON’s ViGO:

Benefits of the Equipment: We were familiar with the technology We had used ViGOs extensively We had 19 units available from a past research project These units allowed for synchronous file sharing, including Flash, Web and whiteboard files

Collaborations Studied: Brock’s AHS & Waterloo’s LOs Brock’s & Waterloo’s Math LOs Toronto’s & Western Ontario’s Pharmacology LO York’s, Brock’s & Seneca College’s development of Lego™ LO Waterloo’s & Lakehead’s Teamwork LO

Waterloo & Brock (AHS) 2 independent teams of staff and students developing LOs for health and related disciplines First contacts were between staff and students in a face-to-face environment Subsequent contact was always by v/c with file sharing ahead of time by or concurrently with v/c through software file sharing

Waterloo & Brock (Math) Significantly different than previous contact. Waterloo group analyzed existing LOs: added assignments for teachers to use in conjunction with LOs for grades 4, 5, & 6 Brock developed LOs: For grade school level For university level The Waterloo/Brock team were Math students destined for B. Ed. programs

Toronto & Western Ontario Both teams coordinated by professors with assistance from learning technologies departments on Campus Toronto’s pharmacology team: Members with specific skill sets & duties Created LO for understanding drug interaction on people of different gender, ages, etc. Western Ontario’s team: Responsible for evaluation of LO from Toronto Professor of Medicine (Paediatrics), and Coordinator of Instructional Technology Resource Center

Brock, York & Seneca 2 universities & a college focused on teaching teachers the value of Lego-mation A ViGo at Brock, a ViGo at Seneca Students, staff & faculty involved Communicated as needed in MSM Messenger and by Met ~ biweekly by v/c (York & Seneca both in Toronto and York would travel to Seneca for v/c occasions) Regular problems with v/c technology (~ every second or third event*) *Problems included software and hardware locking up, losing sound &/or picture at one location

Waterloo & Lakehead Used a combination of ViGo and Polycom technology ( Have programmers writers, and instructional designers at both locations Subject Matter expert and genre writer at Waterloo. Constantly improving LO through weekly v/c team input

Conclusions Synchronous communication has + & - + Includes the ability for immediate clarification/qualification, spontaneous direction changes in topics as needed, and ability to “read” facial expressions and some body language - Includes having to wait for last people to sign in or wait while technology problems are resolved (sometimes tying up the others for some time, even, rarely, losing a whole meeting time)

Conclusions Collaboration always seems to improve the quality of the LO, and v/c collaboration allows partnering over distance at a reduced cost vs. face to face meetings and allows for faster, and easier meetings Partnering between institutions allows for sharing of resources for creation, and sharing of LO afterwards This speeds up LO creation, use and value