Home PublicationsL&LIssuesVolume 26 (1998-1999) February (No. 5)

Collaborative Education

By Glen Bull, Gina Bull, Walter Heinecke, Rhea Walker, Laura Blasi, and Jerry Willis

We want to share some of our most recent experiences in applying technologies to collaborative learning in classroom settings.

A revolution in classroom communication is about to occur. Until recently, the costs of staffing traditional distance-education classrooms, combined with high connection costs through satellite uplinks and high-capacity landlines, have often resulted in typical operational costs of several hundred dollars per hour. These costs are for “full-participation” educational experiences in which the students and instructor can see, hear, and interact with each other. High costs, however, have placed these technologies out of the reach of most classroom teachers, who have not, in fact, even had access to telephones in their classrooms, much less more exotic distance-education technologies. Costs have limited many distance-education efforts to less than ideal but affordable systems. Students may see and hear the instructor, for example, but they must make a phone call or send e-mail to communicate. Distance education has many different patterns today, but many of the limits inherent in most of them are related to costs.

The Internet and the World Wide Web now support an array of potentially inexpensive collaborative technologies. In the past, we have written about synchronous Internet communication tools and their potential for teaching and learning. In earlier columns, we discussed the possible uses of electronic conferencing tools such as chat, audio- and videoconferencing, electronic whiteboards, application sharing, and telephone teleconferencing.

Now we want to share some of our most recent experiences in applying these technologies to collaborative learning in classroom settings. We hope that these new technologies can be used to move from costly, centralized distance-education learning methods to models of collaborative learning that can be used by small (or large) groups of faculty and students.

A “One-to-Many” Model of Distance Education

A Collaborative Model of Distance Education

We question whether the distance-education model is appropriate for thinking about the successful uses of technology in the K–12 arena. Its one-way flow from instructor to students does not address the possibilities of interactive and collaborative education between students in different sites.

Figure 2. Collaborative education: A several- to-several model. Although the one-to-many model of distance education certainly can be both effective and appropriate, the coming revolution in inexpensive Internet-based collaborative tools will make other educational models possible. In other Mining the Internet columns, Judi Harris has provided a taxonomy of successful e-mail collaboration between groups of students in classrooms separated by great distances and from different cultures. Today the Internet and the World Wide Web also provide an array of potentially inexpensive collaborative technologies that can be used by teachers to enhance and expand collaborative education through virtual conferencing. Groups of students and teachers can learn together in real time (see Figure 2).

The dramatically lower costs of the physical infrastructure and connection charges make it feasible for small groups to explore interactions with one another. We are using the term collaborative education to describe this “several-to-several” model of interaction. We have been using several integrated and readily accessible technologies such as Microsoft NetMeeting, full-duplex teleconferencing, and an electronic whiteboard as the backbone of our experiment in collaborative learning.

Collaborative Classes

In our initial tests of the concept, we are linking small classes at the University of Virginia and Iowa State University. One class, Diffusion of Educational Technology: Policy and Practice, has a half-dozen students at one site and three students at the other. A second class, Philosophical Foundations of Instructional Technology, consists of a dozen students at one site and a half-dozen students at the other. Links to these classes may be found on the Web page for the Center for Technology and Teacher Education (http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/teacherlink/teacherlink).

The rationale underlying the collaborative education model is neither efficiency nor cost savings, but the creation of a richer and more diverse experience than would otherwise have been possible. For example, Diffusion of Educational Technology, taught by Walter Heinecke, explores how educational technology policies established by state legislatures are put into practice. This year’s class is comparing technology standards for school personnel in Virginia and Iowa. By including representatives from two states, the class can compare and examine detailed ways in which different approaches bring different outcomes. The class includes a former member of the educational standards board in one state and the co-chair of the commission that developed the technology standards for instructional personnel in another state. Both people serve as resources as the course is taught.

Designing a Collaborative Education Laboratory

A variety of tools can be used to link distant university classes and distant K–12 classrooms. A “Collaborative E-Learning Laboratory” has been established to explore these issues in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Collaborative Learning Laboratory at the Curry School of Education. This laboratory has multiple uses—for interactions with collaborators at distant sites, for use as a conventional seminar room, and as a development facility. Each instructor who uses it has a different instructional style, so the room must be as easy to reconfigure as possible. A variety of instructional tools can be used for collaborative education, and some of those can be found later in this column. (“Virtual Conferences,” a previous discussion of some of these tools, can be found in the February 1998 issue of Learning & Leading with Technology.)

Electronic Whiteboards

The electronic whiteboard can be one of the more powerful collaborative technologies. It is used much like a conventional whiteboard (or chalkboard), but it also permits participants at other sites to watch as the instructor (or moderator or group leader) writes on it. In contrast to data streams such as high-quality video that may generate several million bytes of data per second that must be transmitted, electronic whiteboards generate only a few hundred bytes of information per second. Hence, they are highly efficient data-transfer systems.

Several dozen brands of electronic whiteboards are now available, based on three different underlying technologies: pressure-sensitive, electromagnetic, and laser-tracking. Pressure-sensitive whiteboards rely on pressure sensors to record and digitize graphics drawn on the whiteboard. Electromagnetic systems use a stylus attached to a cable to record the stylus’s position. In the last type, lasers set in the top and sides of the whiteboard track the stylus’s position.

All three types of electronic whiteboards can be purchased for approximately $2,000 and used as conventional whiteboards when not used for collaboration. Many teachers and students may like the fact that each whiteboard screen can be saved to a computer file and printed as class notes.

In our exploration, we selected a laser-based whiteboard for the Virginia lab. Laser-based systems require calibration, but after that they rapidly and accurately track the whiteboard’s marker. They are ideal for static installations and permanent mounting on a wall. The surface shares one important feature with the conventional whiteboard: Sensors do not have to be embedded in the board’s surface.

The Iowa State University partners selected a pressure-sensitive whiteboard. This system has an automated, software-controlled calibration system, a convenient feature when the white-board is moved from room to room. However, the writing surface of some pressure-sensitive models must be periodically replaced because of normal wear on the surface of the membrane that has the pressure sensors.

Figure 4. Microsoft software Whiteboard. The three types of whiteboards all require the purchase of equipment. Software-only versions, however, are far less expensive. One such software-based whiteboard is embedded in Microsoft’s NetMeeting (see Figure 4). This collaborative tool can be downloaded from the Internet without charge (go to www.microsoft.com/windows/netmeeting/). A mouse or a graphics tablet can be used to draw on the software whiteboard. In contrast to the physical electronic whiteboards, which can be used in almost the same way as conventional whiteboards, these software counterparts require more adaptation on the part of the teacher. However, the “price” is certainly affordable.

Although video may not be essential to a collaborative meeting, an audio connection is highly desirable. An audio linkage provides an efficient way to exchange information. NetMeeting (and other programs) provides an audio connection between two meeting sites using the Internet. The price is right (free except for the Internet-connection cost), but the audio can suffer from several forms of distortion. The most bothersome is a time lag anywhere from 200–300 milliseconds to several seconds. This delay makes conversation stilted and unnatural—like talking to an astronaut on the moon. The severity of other distortions depends on the amount of traffic on the Internet at the time of the class.

Because stable, intelligible audio is crucial to the success of the class’s interactions, we opted to use a conventional conference phone and phone line. A conference phone costs from $300 to $600. Conventional speaker phones are typically half-duplex, so only one party can speak at a time. In contrast, a full-duplex conference phone allows both parties to speak (and be heard) simultaneously. In our experience, the full-duplex system is the better choice. It costs slightly more but supports a much more natural and comfortable discussion style.

Some models of conference phones also have extended microphones that allow people in more distant parts of a room to be heard clearly. A wireless microphone for the instructor is also an option. These enhancements add to the cost of the conference phone, but a full-duplex system with a wireless microphone still can be purchased for less than $1,000.

Although we have elected to use enhanced phone service in our project, we believe advances in technology will eventually make Internet-based voice transmission more viable. With compression techniques such as that built into RealAudio (www.realaudio.com/) and other free programs, radio stations all over the world are now “broadcasting” across the Internet. Faster transmission rates, higher capacity backbones, and further advances in compression technology are making real-time audio conversations a routine Internet activity.

Video

Conventional video transmitted over cable has a frame rate of approximately 30 frames per second. The Internet’s bandwidth often is not enough to support this transmission rate, so live video images may seem as if they were recorded swimming underwater.

In our second class meeting, we quickly discovered another important need for video for which frame rate is not as critical. Just before class, the instructor discovered a diagram related to the planned class for that day. He attempted to reproduce the diagram by drawing it using the only technology available—the whiteboard. However, we realized that a document camera may be even more appropriate for this type of application. A diagram or three-dimensional object can be placed beneath a document camera—the modern equivalent of the opaque projector—for class display. Its output can be displayed in two classes, one of them a thousand miles away. The document or object is not moving, so frame rate is not a concern for this use of video.

Electronic Discussion Groups

Figure 5. Netscape Communicator message center with e-mail and newsgroups. A conventional class favors students who are prepared to speak, so other students may be left out. Electronic discussion groups allow a class to continue its discussion between meetings. In contrast to electronic mail, discussion groups, including newsgroups, allow “threaded” conversations. Both Netscape Communicator and Microsoft Internet Explorer include software that can be used to access discussion groups with their newsreaders (see Figure 5). Netscape uses “Collabra” as the descriptive name of its discussion-group software. The Collabra client can access any type of news server. The Collabra server software adds enhanced capabilities to Internet newsgroups. Both the client and the server software are available without charge (go to http://shop.netscape.com/computing/main.adp). The equivalent Microsoft program, Outlook Express, also reads mail and news in one convenient message center. The user only needs to go to one location to read both mail and Internet discussion groups. (See the November 1997 Mining the Internet, “Internet Discussion Groups,” for a review of electronic discussions that use Internet mail and newsgroups.)

Shared Multimedia Resources

Many other resources can be made available to a collaborative class. For example, RealAudio pioneered streaming audio that can be readily accessed over the Internet—even with a modem. RealVideo (streaming video) soon followed. Microsoft noted this trend and soon made NetShow available. Both the RealAudio and NetShow servers are commercial products, but at the time this article was written, both offered educational discounts. The client software (RealPlayer and Windows Media Player) is available to individuals without charge.

RealAudio server
www.real.com/products/servers/index.html

RealAudio player
www.real.com/products/player

NetShow server
www.microsoft.com/Theater/nsvsnst.htm

NetShow player
www.microsoft.com/windows/mediaplayer/en/default.asp

Figure 6. Microsoft Windows sound recorder. Microsoft Windows includes a sound recorder (Figure 6) that can be used to record sound files, which can then be made available to the class through NetShow. If this utility is used extensively, then a sound-editing program with additional features might be useful. We are now using a shareware version of Cool Edit 96 from Syntrillium Software (www.syntrillium.com) that can be registered for $50 after a trial period. Sound Forge, another sound-editing program with professional features, is available for $500 from Sonic Foundry ( www.sonicfoundry.com).

Figure 7. Microsoft Office screen camcorder. The Microsoft Camcorder utility can record events on a Windows screen and play them with a student or instructor voice-over (see Figure 7). The Camcorder utility is distributed on the CD of extra software that comes with several Microsoft Office products; it does not seem to be available as an independent product. This allows an instructor to use the mouse cursor to highlight elements of a diagram and record an accompanying commentary. Camcorder files can be saved in multimedia (.avi) format or as stand-alone executable (.exe) files.

Planning a Collaborative Education Lab

Each room and instructional situation will be different, so there is no single standard for a collaborative education lab. It’s best just to begin, because we have found that we further refine and revise our lab arrangement after almost every class. There is no substitute for teaching actual collaborative classes with real teachers, and no single size fits every instructional style. Therefore, collaborative classrooms must be flexible and easily reconfigured if used by more than one instructor.

If you select a pilot classroom (or perhaps a site in the media center or library), teachers can begin to experience the instructional potential of collaborative technologies. If the class or lab has an Internet-connected computer, then a collaborative facility can be initiated even with limited resources. Table 1 suggests some possibilities.

Table 1. Designing Inexpensive, Low-Cost, and
Moderate-Cost Collaborative Education Laboratories

A collaborative facility can be established with a modest investment in hardware and software, but many of these capabilities will require support by a technically knowledgeable individual, especially during design and installation.

We provided three different columns in Table 1 to describe systems that can be acquired for less than $500, less than $2,000, and less than $10,000. The first system might be acquired with school discretionary funds or PTO support. The system for under $2,000 might require a small innovation grant. The $10,000 system would likely require support from the central school division.

During the past year, several billion dollars were spent on computer labs and Internet connections for K–12 schools. In many instances, the design of these systems has been developed by engineers and architects with limited input from practicing teachers. It therefore seems reasonable to invest relatively modest sums in pilot activities with selected teachers to determine how these technologies might best improve education. As a reader of Learning & Leading with Technology, you are probably a potential leader of such activities in your own school system. We hope this overview is useful as a starting point for dialogue within your system.

Summary

The nation has adopted a goal of providing an Internet connection to every school and classroom by the next century. Simply providing an Internet drop to every classroom will not yield the instructional benefits that we might anticipate. Using such ancillary resources as electronic whiteboards, multimedia computers, and projection systems will allow teachers to realize fully the benefits of such connections.

Hardware and software costs are dropping rapidly, which makes them more attractive to district purchasers, but teachers will still need time to identify uses of these technologies that match their instructional styles and class goals. Installing pilot facilities in selected classrooms now will encourage experimentation and allow us to exploit fully these capabilities when they are routinely available in every classroom.

We are working with a local school system to place several such facilities in local classrooms and link them together. As we learn more, we will report on the outcome in later columns. In the meantime, we are interested in hearing about your experiences with collaborative classrooms.

Resources

Cool Edit 96, Syntrillium Software, www.syntrillium.com

Microsoft NetMeeting, www.microsoft.com/netmeeting/

Microsoft NetShow Theater Server, www.microsoft.com/Theater/default.htm

Netscape Collabra, http://software-depot.netscape.com/

RealAudio, www.realaudio.com/

Sound Forge, Sonic Foundry, www.sonicfoundry.com

Glen Bull (glenbull@virginia.edu) is a professor of instructional technology in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. Contact Glen at Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

Gina Bull (ginabull@virginia.edu) is a computer systems engineer in the information technology and communication (ITC) organization at the University of Virginia. Contact Gina at Information Technology and Communications, University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA 22903.

Walter Heinecke (heinecke@virginia.edu) is an assistant professor of research and evaluation in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. Contact Walter at Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

Rhea Walker (rrw@iastate.edu) is a doctoral student at Iowa State University. Contact Rhea at Lagomarcino Hall, College of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 55011.

Laura Blasi (blasi@virginia.edu) is a Curry School doctoral student who serves as coordinator of the Jostens School Technology Assessment project. Contact her at Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

Jerry Willis (jerryw@iastate.edu) is a professor of instructional technology at Iowa State University. Contact him at Lagomarcino Hall, College of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 55011.

Copyright © 1999, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.