2010 ETUG Spring Workshop: (see session descriptions http://etug.ca/?page_id=835) Session: Discovering a Multi-Access Learning Environment in Action Presenter: Valerie Irvine, TIE Research Lab, Faculty of Education, University of Victoria

1. Discovering a Multi-Access Learning
Environment in Action
Dr. Valerie Irvine
TIE Research Lab, Faculty of Education
University of Victoria
virvine@uvic.ca

2. About Valerie
Dr. Valerie Irvine
Assistant Professor, Educational Technology
Co-Director, Technology Integration and Evaluation
(TIE) Research Lab
University of Victoria
2 of 39

3. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
“Technology Integration and Evaluation” Research Lab
http://tie.uvic.ca (with Co-Director, Dr. Allyson Hadwin
Approximately $800,000 in funding provided by:
• Canada Foundation for Innovation
• British Columbia Knowledge Development Funds
• Knowledge North (Canarie)
• The University of Victoria (various sources)
• Telus
• Polycom
• Dell
• SMART Technologies
• Epson, etc.
3 of 39
3

4. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
RESEARCHING
• Technologies for improving learning strategies
• Learner and teacher technology acceptance
• Regulating solo and collaborative learning
• Evaluating video-conferencing technologies for
learning and collaborating
4 of 39

5. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
INFRASTRUCTURE
• State-of-the-art video conferencing facility
• Research workstations
• Digital video & recording devices
• 3 portable laptop laboratories
• Video capture and streaming server (about to be
enhanced)
• SMART technologies
5 of 39

6. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
6 of 39

7. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
7 of 39

8. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
8 of 39

9. So what does this mean for learning
environments?
• Influx of new technologies supported the
exploration of ways to support networked learning
9 of 39

10. Reflections on online course
experiences
• Registration options:
• Building, Room, Day, Time
• “ONL” = online…
• Guest speaker from Stanford and the logistics of
student involvement when no schedule was
committed
• Video conference vs. Elluminate
10 of 39

11. Reflections on online course experiences
• Mix of off-campus & on-campus students enrolled
• On-campus students create F2F meetings
• Distance students create F2F meetings when in
the same city
• Perception of responsibility to meet needs of
on-campus students
• Rural school district superintendent with VC-enabled
room expresses interest in teacher PD via VC
11 of 39

12. Current Processes in Higher Education
• Examination of registration system
• “building, room, day, time” course category
• “online” course category
• An environment or way to connect is chosen
• Student participation in a course
• determined by ability to access a course within
those constraints
12 of 39

13. Current processes in higher education
• NO option for students to *make a choice*
about *how they are able* to access a course
• Locus of control of course access is at the
instructor or institutional level
13 of 39

14. Factors for Change
• Recent research showing higher exam results
with podcast learning
(McKinney, Dyck, & Luber, 2009)
• How do we communicate choice of access to
learners?
14 of 39

15. Factors for Change
• Declining student population in some cases
• echo generation moving on, increase of post-
secondary institutions, decrease in funding,
etc.
• Need to merge the three types of learners
and find ways to deliver learning that can be
accessed…
• Anytime, anywhere, and any way
15 of 39

16. Questions raised
• How does this fit with current delivery modes?
• How can this be communicated via traditional
university time table systems?
• What type of label is appropriate for this
environment?
• How can this be supported?
• Do we worry about media release of students?
16 of 39

17. Learning Delivery Modes
• Face-to-Face Education
• Blended Learning
• Online Learning (asynchronous typically)
• Blended Online Learning (asynchronous &
synchronous)
• Video Conferencing Learning
:
• Multi-Access Learning
17 of 39

18. Learning Delivery Considerations
• Additional Considerations
• Open Online Communities
• Open Courses
• See examples by George Siemens (Athabasca
University) or Alec Couros (University of
Regina)
18 of 39

19. Multi-Access Learning (Irvine, 2009)
allows the following:
• School district, health unit, business could register a
number of students and the spot for one IP connection to a
vc-enabled classroom
• Individual enrolment by desktop distance learner to watch
recorded lectures and participate online
• On-campus learners can register a bum-in-seat spot in the
VC-enabled classroom
• Potentially, desktop connection to VC unit if hardware
bridge is employed
19 of 39

20. Multi-Access Learning (Irvine, 2009)
20 of 39

21. 21 of 39

22. Three Types of Learner Access
1. Distributed (online)
• Off campus typically
• On campus learners (can be unhappy with an
online option)
• Individual access (not likely pods of F2F learners)
22 of 39

23. Three Types of Learner Access
2. IP Video Conferencing
• Off-campus learners (e.g., health units, business,
K-12, etc.)
• With so many codecs around, why do we not
support their access to higher education for
professional development?
23 of 39

24. Three Types of Learner Access
3. Face-to-Face
• Still “the” mode for most universities
• Might be easier to push traditional faculty
members to move to video conference than to
teaching online?
• Course casting is typically seen as a supplemental
resource for on-campus students
• And perhaps loss-leader marketing tactic…
24 of 39

25. Considerations for Implementation
• Cost and Portability
• Offset to cost may
be increased
enrollment
25 of 39

26. Considerations for Implementation
• Instructional design – need for research/pilots
• Instructor Preparation
26 of 39

27. Considerations for Implementation
• Recording and Privacy
• Media Release?
• Course outline as contract and stated
• Alternative exists (online access)
• Integration of other technologies to access
community groups (SMART Bridgit conferencing)
27 of 39

28. Considerations for Implementation
• Registration Systems
• Biggest barrier
• No option for learners to *make a
choice* about how they wish or *are
able* to access learning
• We have offered anytime and anywhere,
but not any way
28 of 39

29. Considerations for Implementation
• Registration Systems
“Multi-access course”
1. Online (asynchronous)
2. Video Conference at stated day/time
User to submit IP, register one-way of
the multi-point unit, register students
at site
3. Face-to-face at day/time/room
29 of 39

30. OVERVIEW OF FIELD INITIATIVES
• Video conferencing
• Role of Social Media
• Role of Recording/Streaming & Mobile Learning
30 of 39

31. VIDEO CONFERENCING
• Bandwidth
• Knowledgeable educators & staff
• See B.C. Premier’s Technology Council’s
Report # 12
31 of 39

32. VIDEO CONFERENCING
• Community support
• http://2learn.ca equivalent is required
• And where exactly is the VC community???
• Some school districts listed on Canarie site:
http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/connected/map.html
• Some school districts listed on VcAlberta.ca
site:
http://vcalberta.ca/directory/directory.cfm
• More to come on VcCanada.ca when it gets
more support…
32 of 39

33. The Elevate Conference (K-12)
• Approximately 500 K-12 Educators in Alberta
• willing to come to a conference in August
33 of 39

34. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
34

35. TIE Research Lab @ UVic
35

36. Social Media
• Could provide ability to provide another way for
learners viewing live stream to participate or for
connecting for open education
• Tagging options within streaming solutions
36 of 39

37. Recording/Streaming & Mobile Learning
• Live Stream or Video-on-Demand of Multi-access
course
• See presentation later today
• Ability to support mobile learning with this multi-
access route
37 of 39

38. Dream? Or Plausible?
• Invited to present to Internet2’s advisory group in
Washington DC…
38 of 39

39. to check out
• http://cilc.org
• http://vcalberta.ca
• PTC report
• VROC
• Content providers/BCTF
• http://bc.net presentation
• http://tie.uvic.ca
• GYRD
39 of 39

40. Open Floor for Comments/Questions
Dr. Valerie Irvine
virvine@uvic.ca
250-721-7778
40 of 39