Concluding Summary

A mixed approach to course delivery was adopted. Video conferencing and face-to-face methods together with various technologies were put to use. Particular emphasis was placed in introducing interactive components. At times classes were held at the city and Hamilton campuses simultaneously. Teachers were present at both campuses. An e-learning expert was also present at Hamilton campus. A KeePd advisor was present at the city campus.

Students learning experience - Most students felt comfortable with interactive components made available to them. KeePad and Zing Technologies increased class-room interaction. This dynamic environment using Zing Technology promoted participation from introverts as well.

It was not a completely smooth sailing. We did have hiccups with technology and hardware. The technical issues we experienced at the last session were with the video conferencing technology and NOT the interactive learning technologies. All the 'bits' have to work at the time of delivery.

A good part of delivery was by video-conferencing. A few students were reluctant to respond via video-conferencing and still preferred face-to-face delivery method.

Our focus is now turned on to improving efficiency of interactive sessions for future learning events.

We acknowledge the Australian Flexible Learning Framework for their financial support for this project. Special thanks to Howard Errey from eWorks for his assistance and helpful advice. We would also like to thank our industry partner Endress & Hauser for their solid support in providing us with an industry video and thank you to KeePad for their technical assistance when we needed them most. Finally we wish to thank the RMIT students and staff who participated in this project. Let them shout it out. Hear them say it loud and clear.

Class-room participation – how was it initiated?

Class-room participation – how was it initiated?

KeePad and Zing were main technologies used to provide interaction for remote users. How well was it received by students? How did these technologies contributed to class room participation? Here are two examples

KeePad

An interactive component was created using PowerPoint and KeePad. This presentation included a few multiple choice questions. An example of screen shot is shown here. Initially only the question and multiple answers will appear on the screen.

Each student is encouraged to respond using “clicker”. Their responses are portrayed as bar graph shown on the right hand side. It is evident that students have varying level of understanding. Teacher uses this opportunity to get the class room discussion going. This enhances learning process and student become active participants.

Zing feedback

In this case, an interactive component was created using data capturing software and normal Keyboard. This presentation included a few multiple choice questions. Students respond to it by typing their response in normal way. Zing collects responses of all students and provide a combined out to the teacher in a table format.

A sample of response is shown in table format. In this case, question presented appears at the top. First column is student’s seat number. This ensures that student remain anonymous. Zing accepts response in the form of typed text. Hence student is able to respond freely and not restricted (as in multiple choice question). A teacher can then take appropriate action to ensure learning has occurred.

Question No: 2	Describe the difference between Temperature and Heat? (Only seat numbers are stated here to ensure anonymity)
Seat No:	Zing keyboard No:	Students’ Comments
1.	9	about 7
2.	11	transfer of energy,
3.	5	temperature = the average kinetic energy of molecules or atoms in a substance
4.	6	heat is the transfer of energy
5.	3	Temperature is the average kinetic energy. Heat is the transference of the energy.
6.	4	temperature is the average kinetic energy of a body i.e. how hot something is
7.	8	temp is the average kinetic energy .heat is the transference of the energy
8.	5	heat = the energy transferred into or out of a substance to change its temperature
9.	10	Temperature is kinetic energy Heat is the transfer of the energy
10.	6	temperature is
11.	4	heat is the amount of heat in a body e.g.: the volume of heat

Do you have any thoughts how you would improve responsiveness with the remote group?

This is the question posed by Howard. Many of us may have the same in our minds too. Well here is a solution.

Interaction using Zing Technology

Zing is similar to Keepad, but the students have a full computer keyboard and may write paragraph length responses to questions, and the related host screen shows all the responses from all the keyboards. It is an invaluable brainstorming tool--one of the students commented on this during the session--and is a means of eliciting more complex and detailed responses from the entire class, not just the extroverts. A preliminary trial using this technology was tested and more work needs to be done.

Interaction using Keepad Technology

Two approaches are possible with Keepad. First option will be by the use of remote polling software. Students will interact with internet using specialised clicker. The option is to use response ware and a smart mobile phone. Trials are still be carried out in using response ware and mobile phone.

Improved interaction

Prime objective was to increase interaction in the delivery of dual-trade courses. 

During the morning of the 27th of May, a full video-conference was conducted between Melbourne & Hamilton. More attention was given to promote interaction between participants and the teacher. Various technologies put to use at the same time to get better learning experience out of materials presented.

Graham Williams was the instructor and he presented the introduction to "Temperature", by use of a PowerPoint presentation that included Keepad technology. Throughout the session, which ran for approximately 80 minutes, the students had numerous opportunities to interact via the KeePads to various aspects of the material. As an instructor sitting in on the viewing end of Graham's presentation, it was an opportunity for me to observe the look and feel of video-conference delivery and note directly the students responses. As was common, the students seem reluctant to volunteer answers via video-conference. It may be that in the classroom we use direct eye contact a lot more than we realise in prompting students to respond to questions. For this reason the use of technology like Keepad becomes vital if remote delivery is to be pursued. Keepad has the facility to be used over the internet, and does not rely on a specialised clicker--a smart mobile phone is capable of being used as a fully functional alternative. (Due to technology issues with the video-conference system, Keepad was only implemented locally at Hamilton for this test).

In the afternoon session of face to face teaching, Zing interactive technology was used. Zing is similar to Keepad, but the students have a full computer keyboard and may write paragraph length responses to questions, and the related host screen shows all the responses from all the keyboards. It is an invaluable brainstorming tool--one of the students commented on this during the session--and is a means of eliciting responses form the entire class, not just the extroverts. During the session a few opportunities were taken to use the technology, as a means of seeing what they retained form the morning session, and also in 'brainstorming' mode. Its biggest use however came at the close of the day, when we used it instead of feedback sheets, to get the students to comment on the two sessions. I believe that this technology allowed us to get some excellent feedback, from all the students--some responding multiple times to a single feedback question, and I believe that each student responded at least once to each question--something that does not always happen with hard-copy feedback forms.

Zing is also able to be used over the internet from any internet connected computer, and does not require dedicated keyboards.

Industry support from Endress + Hauser

Most of the students undertaking this dual-trade program do it on a part time basis while keeping up with their full time job. Endress + Hauser is one of the employers who provide support to RMIT's intiative for this Electrical / Instrumentation (Dual-trade) program.

As a token of their support a video on "Flow measurement" produced by Endress + Hauser has been offered to us to be used as a resource for this program.

We acknowledge and thank Endress + Hauser for their contribution towards this project. View this video here.

Shane's trial of technology

Most students felt comfortable with interactive learning components created with PowerPoint and also with video conferencing. However a few would still prefer face-to-face delivery instead of video conferencing. Their feed back is given in a nut shell.

The good

·         Video conferencing satisfactory, supporting documents would be preferred.

·         Timing of video – explanatory video should be presented first instead of midway between lectures. It will help understand the concept first.

·         Both Video conferencing and face-to-face classes were delivered well

·         New project made a big difference.

·         Video from Endress & Hauser was very good.

·         The class was better due to more interaction.

·         Video at the start of the lesson will be very good.

The not so good

·         Power point presentation does not align well with work book.

Comparing delivery models

Preliminary Trial 8th April 2011 - this is a major milestone to try out the technology and to assess its suitability for the audience. Friday the 8th of April gave us an opportunity to trial three delivery modes for comparison purposes.

Session 1 (approx 1 hr)
Vortex Flow meters--delivered in the classroom in the standard manner--projecting the workbook onto a screen and using it as a basis for the lesson.

Session 2 (approx 2 hrs)
Magnetic Flow meters--delivered in class, but using a PowerPoint presentation rather than the workbook and finishing with a short (4 minute) video linked from the PP.

Session 3 (approx 1 hr)
Ultra-sonic Flow meters-- delivered via video-conference using PowerPoint, some drawing on the screen with a tablet and pen, and with another short video as an introduction rather than a summary.

Technology did not let us down, although we had to re-configure the video-conference to be able to show the video. (Video-conferences can be set up to deliver either clarity or movement). We initially had clarity as the default setting due to the heavy use of PowerPoint, however this setting made the video almost unwatchable. Once re-configured the video was by all accounts okay. Even in this mode the clarity for the Powerpoint slides was acceptable as we hade gone for large text summarising the points we needed to make rather than smaller, more detailed, text.

Interactive components using Zing and Person Response systems are yet to be integrated into the delivery.