Wimba Live Classroom

The learning landscape is continuously changing and is reflected in the increase of online delivery of curriculum. In higher education, overall online enrollment increased from 1.98 million in 2003 to 3.1 million in 2006 representing a 64% increase in online engagement (Sloan Consortium, 2006). This no longer represents a trend but rather a process of diffusion of online learning as it becomes mainstreamed in higher education.Contrary to what we may assume about learners’ preferences for the online world, studies have shown that students prefer face-to-face environments for learning. The level of peer interaction and faculty-student interaction are important to students and contribute to overall student satisfaction with their learning environment (Roach & Lemasters, 2006). Students remain wary of online learning and they take online courses primarily because of convenience (Ryan, 1999, as cited in Mansour & Mupinga, 2007).Similarly, faculty remain concerned about the perceived lack of interaction in the online environment and the challenge of how to maintain effective communication and engagement of the learners (O’Quinn & Corry, 2002; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2006). However, online teaching has the potential to create a vibrant and active learning community. As the role of the instructor changes from teacher to facilitator, there may be even more interaction in the online class than what occurs in a face-to-face classroom (Gahungu, Dereshiwsky, & Moan, 2006). In addition, ensuring interaction in the online environment is an accepted standard for quality in the design for online courses (Simonson et al., 2006).These concerns for enabling effective interaction were well-founded when the main vehicle for online communication was comprised of asynchronous text-based modalities. However, McInnerney and Roberts (2004) propose that the development of online learning communities is enhanced with the use of synchronous communication. Technology now allows students to connect with their instructors and their peers in real time with audio and video chat. Platforms such as Wimba or Elluminate are Internet based applications that allow instructors and students to do presentations, share whiteboard activities, and share desktop applications with the capability of hearing and seeing each other. Student polling and break-out rooms for group activities all add to the interactive environment. Instructors can hold virtual office hours, Webcasts, and bring in guest lecturers. In addition, sessions can be archived for future viewing. Teaching online has now been taken to a new level, but faculty remain cautious in the adoption of this technology.This article will examine factors related to the diffusion of the Wimba Live Classroom technology using Rogers’ (1995) framework for diffusion of innovation. Recommendations for adoption and implementation of this technology will be provided.The study takes place at a minority-serving 4-year university where the student enrollment is 87% Hispanic, specifically Mexican American. Most of the students are commuters and also work while attending school full time. Accessibility and flexibility of curriculum delivery are significant issues for this population. Taking fully-online, hybrid, and Web-augmented courses both synchronously and asynchronously may contribute to ease of access for course completion and retention of studentsCulture impacts on learning styles, and in this case it is an important factor for consideration in curriculum design (Chan, 2003). Mexican American culture is collectivist and high context where communication is indirect and rich in nuance and meaning (Hofstede, 2001). This type of communication style uses both verbal and nonverbal cues that can be afforded in a face-to-face situation. It would seem then, that, considering this audience, the use of Wimba Live Classroom that simulates authentic communication, would be essential for student satisfaction and effective delivery of curriculum.In 2005, Wimba Live Classroom was introduced to this university community via the Center for Learning, Teaching & Technology (CLTT). The Center maintains the WebCT course management system and has supported over 12,000 students in over 650 courses that are delivered in Web-augmented, hybrid, and fully-online formats. In addition, CLTT is responsible for the research and dissemination of new educational technologies campus-wide. CLTT also provides full training and support for faculty in the appropriate pedagogical use of educational technology for delivery of curriculum.Live Classroom represented a new technology for the faculty and sparked their interest in terms of their consideration for teaching online courses. The use of a live virtual classroom addressed the issue of maintaining effective communication and interaction. Faculty were now more willing to entertain the possibilities that technology now afforded for online teaching.Two faculty teaching graduate courses in linguistics were actively recruited to use Live Classroom. Both faculty had taught internationally and were open to the possibilities that Live Classroom had to offer. Both had a foreign student overseas that they wanted to bring into their class that they were teaching on-site. Their plan was to use Live Classroom for one semester and see how it worked. One was a new faculty member and the other was a senior faculty member. The training occurred in the following steps:Before the face-to-face session, instructional materials and Live Classroom procedures were uploaded in the WebCT course for the students (see Appendix A). Procedural checklists were distributed to the faculty (see Appendix B). CLTT Developers and technical help were available to be with the students and the instructor for these face-to-face sessions.Both instructors ran two face-to-face sessions. Following that, the senior faculty member felt competent to run her class virtually off-site. The other faculty member continued to meet with her class face-to-face and used Live Classroom to bring in the foreign student.It was hoped that these two faculty members could be influential in the diffusion process for this technology. They did a presentation of their experiences in a luncheon forum for 40 faculty and continue to use the platform themselves. In addition, CLTT delivers a 6-week online training session for faculty who are going to teach fully online and Live Classroom is incorporated into this course. Over 50 faculty have completed the course over the past year.Despite the presentation and the online training, only five faculty members have adopted Live Classroom over the course of the year. Three of the faculty use it for fully online courses and two faculty members use it for recording and archiving their face-to-face sessions. A more systematic approach using diffusion theory may have contributed to a faster rate of adoption among faculty at the university.Rogers (1976) defines diffusion as “the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system” (p. 5). The concept contains four main elements: an innovation, communication channels, time, and a social system.According to Rogers (1995) the rate of adoption of an innovation is based upon the perceived characteristics of the innovation. In other words, the innovation could be beneficial, but if it is not perceived as such, will not be adopted. These characteristics are categorized as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability.For the two faculty members in this pilot, the relative advantage of using this technology was to connect an international student to their face-to-face group. The senior faculty member realized that this would also benefit her students as they were working full-time jobs and they would appreciate not having to come on-site to classes. She was receptive to the idea of having regularly scheduled virtual evening classes.The junior faculty member was not ready to take that step and she felt more comfortable in the face-to-face environment. She said “This was my first time teaching a graduate class and I did not want to abandon my students.” She felt that there was a disadvantage to her students in doing these virtual sessions. Interestingly she did move to a fully online environment the next semester. This might be the result of her own comfort level and her realization that she could still interact with her students and was not in any way abandoning them.Rogers (1995) defines compatibility as the perception of the innovation in relation to existing values, experiences, and needs of the potential adopters. In the case of the junior faculty member, she recalled her own graduate experience as being face-to-face intensive with her advisor and peers. She said, “I really enjoyed those times when I could go by his office and just sit and speak with him about my topic. Also I remember that often a group of us would sit in his office and have great conversation.” In light of these experiences, she naturally would have ambivalence about interacting only in a virtual environment in that it may take away from the richness of the experience. She clearly was much more tied to this concept of a live presence than the other professor. Perhaps that would wane as she became more experienced in teaching. This would be something to note in selecting professors for using this technology. The more experienced faculty may not have such a strong need for a face-to-face presence with their students. It would be expedient to gauge their attitudes around having a face-to-face or virtual presence.The perceived complexity of Live Classroom became compounded when many faculty thought that they had to learn how to teach in a fully online course to use this technology. However, some professors modified the use of Live Classroom to record and archive their lectures in the face-to-face classroom. This would have been a good strategy to suggest for the entire faculty. Using it this way would have provided a bridge to allow them to get comfortable with the technology and master it in stages.The complexity of Live Classroom was mitigated by the full support and training offered to the faculty by CLTT. Having instructional and technical support allowed them to relax and concentrate on their teaching. It is essential that in considering diffusion of new technology that the complexity factor is reduced to a minimum.Both faculty members had the opportunity to experiment with Live Classroom and did not have to make a decision for full-scale adoption immediately. This was helpful for the junior faculty member who was more hesitant in delivering her course off-site. If she had not been given this opportunity to test it in a modified way, she might not have engaged with it at all.There was nothing tangible to observe in terms of results of the use of this technology. However, the Center did donate tablet PCs to those faculty using Live Classroom for the semester. Other faculty inquired about their new laptops, which initiated the discussion of Live Classroom. It is important to try to provide something concrete in relation to new technology usage.The rate of adoption of an innovation is measured by the number of individuals over a specific period of time who adopt the innovation (Rogers, 1995). Communication channels, either mass media or interpersonal, will influence this rate. However, the communication channel needs to be used strategically depending on the stage of adoption. For example, in the early stages of diffusion, the innovation is picked up by early adopters. Rogers (1995) developed five adopter categories that provide useful information when framing the diffusion process for a new technology. They consist of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. These categories provide a structure for audience segmentation and different communication channels can be selected for the target audience.Rogers’ (1995) framework suggests that the process of diffusion begins with the innovators. In this case, the innovator was a department (CLTT) rather than an individual. This allowed for control of financial resources and was helpful in assuming the risk that goes along with new ventures. CLTT also had the ability to use mass channels of communication, that is, faculty listserves. This avenue was not used effectively and the emphasis was placed on the early adopters as the driving force for the diffusion process.When examining communication through channels, Huckman (2003) found that individuals who were perceived as having a high level of technology expertise exerted significant influence on the technology adoption of their peers. In the medical field, for example, pharmaceutical companies target opinion leaders as the optimal means of diffusing the adoption of the technology through the community of practice.The notion of expert power is embedded in the academic community of practice. Burke, Fournier, and Prasad (2007) define expert power as the influence that an individual exerts on others due to their perceived superiority of knowledge or ability. Rogers (1995) acknowledged that diffusion occurs among participants that are most likely heterophilous—the degree to which individuals have different attributes. In academe, most faculty are fairly homophilous or similar in education and socioeconomic status. However, the distinction of achieved expertise is where the clear boundaries are drawn amongst faculty members.In this case, one of the faculty members who was recruited was a new faculty member and not well known on the campus, while the other was a senior faculty member. The senior faculty member would be considered more influential in terms of perceived expertise due to her formal position in the system. Based on this, it would be expedient to target those individuals who have senior status and are viewed by their peers to be fairly technologically savvy.The hierarchy of position should not be the only consideration in recruiting early adopters. There are individuals who are early adopters but who operate outside of a communication network. These individuals may have a limited interpersonal network and prefer to quietly experiment with the innovation to test for results. However, early adopters who have a broad interpersonal network and are respected by their peers should be recruited. The foundation for the diffusion process relies on these early adopters and the communication of the message throughout the social system to others. Therefore, it is important for the facilitator of the diffusion process to distinguish between an early adopter who can move the adoption rate forward and the early adopter who brings it to a standstill.Communication occurs within a social structure where norms and roles of opinion leaders affect the diffusion process (Rogers, 2005). The norms for the higher education system are moving from a paradigm of traditional approaches to teaching and learning to integrating new models that use technology for curriculum delivery. Offering fully online and blended learning opportunities is a strategic direction for most colleges and universities (Sloan Consortium, 2006).Opinion leadership occurs beyond the individual level to an organizational level and is diffused throughout organizational networks. The Sloan Consortium is an example of organizational leadership in the diffusion of online programming. When adopting a new technology for a particular campus it is useful to identify other organizations that use the same technology. Aligning the campus strategy with acknowledged organizational opinion leaders should be made explicit in the marketing of the technology.This aspect was neglected in this particular case. However, the advantages of using this strategy are clear. Universities tend to be risk-aversive and are cautious when forging into new arenas for educational delivery. The knowledge that other institutions are taking similar steps reduces anxiety for administrators who make the decisions to adopt the technology. In addition, faculty who are the early adopters can look to their colleagues at other institutions for guidance.The selection of educational technology for a campus is not always systematic and may be tied to the particular idiosyncratic likes and dislikes of the technology manager. A systematic approach based on the principles of diffusion would mitigate this problem. In this case, the implementation of Live Classroom may have been more effective with the use of Rogers’ (1995) diffusion theory as a framework.Innovators who bring in new technologies may gravitate to those they know will participate willingly in the initiative. However, these early adopters may not have the interpersonal networks or the acknowledged position of expertise in the social system to support effective communication for the diffusion process. It is important to distinguish early adopters who can facilitate the diffusion process from those who would not be as effective.In addition to their perceived leadership role, those targeted to pilot the technology should be selected based on their compatibility with how the technology will be used. Too often, faculty are selected based on their technological ability. A faculty member could be very technologically savvy but favor face-to-face interaction with students over online environments. In this case, it would be wise to give a considerable weight in the selection decision to those faculty who have favorable attitudes to enabling virtual environments.Emphasis should be placed on the support and training that will be provided for both faculty and students who will be using this platform. The complexity of the technology needs to be minimized in relation to its relative advantage.It is important to allow faculty time to experiment with the technology and evaluate its use in their teaching practice. They need the flexibility to opt out at any point in the semester.Communication channels should be used strategically with a combination of interpersonal networks and mass media channels. Although diffusion is initially driven by opinion leaders and early adopters, it can be further facilitated by promotion through internal mass media channels (i.e., campus faculty e-mail). In addition, a good marketing strategy would capitalize on the leadership of other institutions in regard to this particular technology. Many faculty may have colleagues at other institutions that are using this technology and could provide them with advice on their experiences.Diffusion theory offers a broad framework that can be applied in the field of education. It is wise for decision makers to look to the theory for guidance when considering the adoption of an emerging technology.For Wimba to work efficiently follow the instructions below.If you are experiencing any technical problems using Wimba please contact:Center for Learning, Teaching & Technology Help DeskMonday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.Phone: (956) 318-5327Email: cdl@utpa.eduIf you need immediate help after 5:00 p.m. you may contact Horizon Wimba Technical Support by e-mail or phone (toll-free in the U.S. and Canada)

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.