Web conferencing technology in online courses a 10

Agenda • Web. Campus at a Glance • Web Conferencing at Stevens – The early years (2003 -2008) – The breakout years (2009 -2013) – Another migration (2013 and beyond) • Perspectives from 10 years of supporting web conferencing as a component of online graduate education © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Web. Campus Operations at Stevens • Began in 2000 with 2 online courses • By 2011 grew to approximately 130 online classes delivered each term – Engineering – Management – Computer Science • Accounts for 2025% of graduate enrollments Fall 2013 Enrollment Map

Enrollment Map Fall 2013 - Tristate Region • Blue Line Denotes 60 -Minute Drive Zone • 48% of Enrollments are outside Blue Line This has remained within +/- 3% since we began tracking 6 years ago! © 2014 by Robert Zotti

List of Web. Campus Programs 20 Masters Degrees… Computer Engineering Mechanical Engineering Computer Science Network Information Systems Cybersecurity Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Engineering Management Service Oriented Computing Enterprise & Cloud Computing Software Engineering Enterprise Project Management Space Systems Enterprise Security and Risk Management Stochastic Systems and Optimization Financial Engineering Systems Engineering Information Systems Security Engineering Management Telecommunications Management …plus 60 related Graduate Certificates © 2014 by Robert Zotti

700 500 Accounting Finance © 2014 by Robert Zotti Project Analytics Discovering Entrep. Activities Org Behavior & Design 200 Strategic Management Marketing Advanced Project Mgmt Strategic Project Mgmt Tech & Inn ovation Mgmt 300 Statistics 400 Project Leadership 600 Project Mgmt 800 MGT/PME 609 EM/IPD 612 or ME 636 MGT 612 SYS/CPE 625 SYS 605 MGT 600 EM/PME 600 or MGT 618 EE/NIS/TM 586 EE/NIS/TM 584 SYS 611 MGT 620 SYS 650 FE 680 MGT 607 SYS 660 MGT 623 CS 501 MGT 610 MGT 671 SSW 540 MGT 614 MIS 750 or NIS 631 PME/ME/CHE 530 or MGT 683 EM/SYS 680 EE/NIS/TM 583 CS 570 MGT 641 PMEME/CHE 535 CS/CPE 590 MIS 630 FE 620 MGT 699 MIS 760 or NIS 632 MGT 611 SSW 565 MIS 710 or NIS 630 SYS 645 MIS 620 CS 546 MIS 730 FE 630 MGT 689 CPE/NIS 654 MGT 680 PME 540 SYS 640 EM 605 MIS/MGT 663 CPE/MT/PEP 690 FE 621 Top 50 Most-Subscribed Web. Campus Classes Spring 2007 thru Spring 2014 100 0

Web Conferencing at Stevens

Before Web Conferencing… 2000 -2003 Interaction in online courses based on discussion posts and email Worked well initially (online classes still new) Some instructors looking for richer interaction options 2004 Students begin asking for more interaction with professors, classmates “I think the Professor should participate in the class discussions more and provide more guidance to the class” – student feedback © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Student Feedback (2004) • I must be frank and say that I am very disappointed with the Web. Campus program. There has been no effort to leverage technology to make this learning experience more effective such as video on demand, live blackboards, etc. Are there any plans to upgrade the Web. Campus program to take advantage of the technologies available today? As Stevens is a technology institution I would expect that Stevens would be leading in this area; not behind. • The course that I am taking now is nothing more than "read chapters x-x", "do problems x-x" posted on a static web page. There is little to no interaction with the rest of the class and the professor. © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Web Conferencing at Stevens The Early Years 2004 Pilot group (3 instructors, 1 staff member) test 3 web conferencing systems. Interwise Connect system chosen for implementation Initial license: 25 concurrent seats 2005 Number of instructors using Interwise: 17 Number of instructors using Interwise for 2 or more classes: 5 2005 -2008 Interwise license increased to 50 concurrent users, then 100 Interwise purchased by AT&T © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Early Usage 2004 - 2005 Number of users Number of real-time events 700 608 600 500 441 400 345 333 353 340 288 300 200 430 145 119 99 100 -05 Sep 05 Au g- -05 Jul Ma y 05 Jun -05 5 r-0 Ap Ma r 05 -05 Feb -05 Jan c-0 4 De 4 v-0 No Oc t-0 4 0 © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Initial Reaction Small group of instructors loved it • “The missing piece” that some needed (Financial Engineering, Telecom Mgmt) • Quickly used in a variety of roles • • • Team assignments Orientation Week calls Online open houses Others interested, but don’t use it • Time/learning curve concerns • Real-time events didn’t fit with original notion of online courses • Real-time events didn’t fit the character of some courses © 2014 by Robert Zotti

2005 Usage (Fall term – 90 online courses) 76 80 Number of Sections 70

Student Feedback “I must say that the audio lectures are amazing. Its like being in class with you” “I showed it to a few colleagues of mine and they were AMAZED. It changed their idea of what a webcourse should be like” “I've personally taken two in-class courses with you, and this web course (via web conferencing) is as good as being in class with you” “I felt I received all the benefits of being in a classroom…. This is definitely a good tool” © 2014 by Robert Zotti

2006 Usage (Fall term – 107 online courses) conducted) 100 87 90 80 Classes 70 60 50 40 30 20 20 3 10 0 classes using Interwise Classes NOT using Interwise © 2014 by Robert Zotti oncampus classes using Interwise

2007 Usage (Fall term – 139 online courses conducted) 140 123 120 100 80 60 40 20 16 6 0 Online using Interwise • Online classes NOT using Interwise on-campus Note: Five out of the six online Financial Engineering classes used web conferencing this term © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Problems with Interwise/ATT Connect • Maintenance blackout periods – Every Friday from 6 PM-9 PM • No auto cut-off for phone bridge users – The 700 -minute phone call • Not compatible with MAC computers • Not compatible with Firefox © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Problems with Interwise/ATT Connect • Lacked a good integration with Web. CT – Extensive manual intervention needed to maintain user directory • Making recordings could get cumbersome • Extensive faculty training required – Slow adoption • “Concurrent seat” license turned out to be expensive © 2014 by Robert Zotti

2008 Usage (Fall Term – 151 online courses conducted) 120 103 100 Number of Web. Campus sections Number of online classes 100 80 60 48 40 20 80 60 40 20 0 Online classes using Interwise NOT using Interwise © 2014 by Robert Zotti 0 None Low Med High Very High Web Conferencing Usage Level

Fall 2008 Faculty Survey Feedback (n=77) © 2014 by Robert Zotti

The Breakout Years 2008 Usage of web conferencing on the rise across campus – Online open houses, staff meetings, special guest lectures AT&T buys Interwise The search begins for a new web conferencing system 2009 Stevens evaluates Web. Ex, Adobe Connect, Wimba, Elluminate, Citrix, and AT&T 2010 -2013 Web conferencing growth continues; application broadly recognized as a strategic, even if not universally utilized © 2014 by Robert Zotti

The 2009 Migration: Evaluation Team Consensus • Close competition between Wimba and Elluminate • Adobe probably the most sophisticated but also the most complex • Web. Ex is a robust market leader, but it did not integrate well with Web. CT • Wimba-Pronto instant messenger application impressed all those who tested it • Instructors who piloted Wimba in Summer term classes gave it high marks for user-friendliness Stevens implements Wimba Classroom © 2014 by Robert Zotti

The 2009 Migration: Faculty Feedback “Two teams in my summer class used Wimba and it helped them a lot. ” - Instructor, MGT 671 “Video works better (in Wimba than Interwise); polling is really simple. ” – Instructor, MIS 750 “Wimba impressed me with extreme flexibility (breakout rooms, Pronto…); from a pure user point of view, Wimba would be my choice. – Instructor, SYS 625 “Pronto is a powerful feature. Elluminate has nothing like it. ” – Instructor, SYS 650 “The (Wimba) interface seems nice and user friendly. I like the browser compatibility, too. ” - Instructor, MGT 609 © 2014 by Robert Zotti

2009 Usage (Fall Term – 159 online courses conducted) 100 89 90 Number of Sections 80 70 70 60 50 40 30 16 20 10 0 Online courses using Wimba Online courses NOT using WImba © 2014 by Robert Zotti On campus courses using Wimba

2010 Usage (Fall Term – 160 online courses conducted) Series 1 90 80 80 80 Number of sections 70 60 50 40 30 20 20 10 0 Online courses utilizing Wimba Online courses NOT utilizing Wimba © 2014 by Robert Zotti On-campus courses utilizing Wimba

2011 Usage (Fall Term – 155 online courses conducted) 90 80 76 79 70 Number of Sections 60 50 40 30 15 20 10 0 Courses utilizing Wimba Courses NOT utilizing Wimba © 2014 by Robert Zotti On-campus courses utilizing Wimba

2012 Usage (Fall Term – 140 online courses conducted) 67 66 Number of Sections 65 63 61 59 59 57 55 Online courses using web conferencing Online courses NOT using web conferencing © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Advantages of Wimba Classroom • Very good value for the expense • No maintenance blackout periods • Phone bridge utilized a local number – No more runaway costs from 1 -800 number • Compatible with MAC computers, more browsers and operating systems © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Advantages of Wimba Classroom • Seamless integration with Web. CT – No more manual intervention needed to maintain user directory • Running and recording webinars was simple – Recordings could be downloaded as MP 4 s • Faculty training not as difficult – Many instructors already used to running webinars © 2014 by Robert Zotti

The costs of web conferencing • Three basic vendor pricing models – Price per concurrent (real-time) seat • Easiest to understand manage • Most expensive, particularly when scaling up – Price per named host (instructor/moderator) • More economical than concurrent seat model, particularly when scaling up • Capacity planning not as intuitive – Price package based on enrollment of school • Simple model based on size of operations – Similar to Turn. It. In license Notes: Most vendors use a combination of models; Some vendors charge many set-up fees © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Problems with Wimba Classroom • JAVA updates sometimes caused problems • Browser updates sometimes caused problems • Vendor support suffered (particularly after acquisition by Blackboard) • Downloading recordings was time-consuming • Does not officially support Google Chrome • Does not render Power. Point animations • Does not share video content well © 2014 by Robert Zotti

l A ow Br na ct io st ru In r / se Ja va ss i Is s d" ta su nc o A e rc r " e h N Pa ive ee ge D de N o d w ot nl Fo o ad un in d/ g Ro Av o ai Ro m la W bl om e" i l /A l N rc ot hi Lo ve Cr ad N ea ot te V Au R isi oo bl d io Cr e m In ea R pu eq te t/ St ue M ud Au st icr en di o o ph t R Ou on oo tp e m ut Us Re /S er qu pe na es ak m t er e/ s/ Pa S ss ou Ar w nd ch ive ord P St ro ar m t/ Sli pt St de o Co s/ p Is PP nn su T/ ec e Up tio l o n ad Lo in ss g /D Ap ro pl p ica pi ng tio n M Sh oo Po ar dl in p e g : W -up B im lo ck ba er C la ss Vi ro de om o (W eb Ph ca on m e Sim ) ul ca st ie en D ss cc e "A Wimba Problem Log (2011 -2012) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 © 2014 by Robert Zotti

2010 – 2013: Leveling Off and 2 nd Migration 2010 Blackboard purchases Wimba – … and Elluminate and Moodle Rooms…. The search begins for a new web conferencing system 2012 Stevens evaluates Web. Ex, Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate, Jigsaw, Skype, and AT&T “Sandbox testing” continues for four months 2013 Stevens announces the decision to migrate to Blackboard Collaborate; Wimba and Blackboard running concurrently to allow orderly transition

2013 Usage (Fall Term – 125 online courses conducted) 66 70 60 59 Number of Sections Both: 7 50 40 Wimba 29 30 20 10 Blackboard 29 0 Online courses using Web Conf Online courses NOT using WImba © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Questions to Ponder (HINT: This is the topic of my Ph. D Project) • Why do some online course participants embrace the use of web conferencing technology while others do not? • What are the drivers and inhibitors of the use of web conferencing technology at the student, instructor, course, academic program, and organizational levels? • How often is web conferencing technology used in different kinds of online courses? • How can schools best institutionalize the use of web conferencing technology? © 2014 by Robert Zotti

So Who is Using it, Who is Not? Fall 2013 Snapshot by Program/Department Fall 2013 online sections Sections using web conf Pct Comments Management 36 28 78% Consistently high pct Electrical Engineering 25 0 0% Systems Engineering 13 13 100% Consistently low or none Consistently the highest pct Computer Science 1 7 1 8% 8% Consistently high pct. Pharmaceutical Mfg 13 8 12 Engineering Management 6 4 67% Consistently high pct Software Engineering 5 2 40% Varies by semester Other 7 3 43% Varies by semester Financial Engineering © 2014 by Robert Zotti Varies by semester

Survey Excerpts • For courses where web conferencing was (and for those where it was not…. ) – Questions for Instructors – Questions for Students • Questions for IT/Online Learning Administration © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Survey Questions Generic data – all classes Instructor Survey Student Survey How many classes have you taught online previously How many classes have you taken online previously? What class did you teach online last term? What class did you take online last term? Have you ever used web conferencing in your online course? © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Survey Questions for classes which used web conferencing Instructor Questions Student Questions How many web conferencing events per semester do you conduct? The interaction between students is a major part of the course. I was able to communicate with my students effectively using web conferencing applications. It was easier to answer questions using web conferencing than with discussion boards. I would recommend the use the web conferencing tools in other classes. What % of web conferencing events do you attend in your class? I enjoy interacting with my online classmates. I was able to communicate with my instructor effectively using web conferencing applications It was easier to ask questions using web conferencing than with discussion boards. I would recommend the use the web conferencing tools in other classes. … (Note: Items on a 5 -point Likert Scale (5=Strongly Agree… 1=Strongly Disagree) © 2014 by Robert Zotti

Survey Questions for classes which did NOT use web conferencing Instructor Question Student Question Have you ever used web conferencing in your online course? The use of web conferencing tools is not suited to the class I teach online. suited to the class I took online. I am satisfied with teaching methods that do I am satisfied with online classes that do NOT include real-time web conferencing events. I have limited time available for learning web conferencing applications. My schedule makes it difficult to conduct My schedule makes it difficult to attend real-time web conferencing events. I was able to communicate with my students I was able to communicate with my effectively without using web conferencing instructor effectively without using real-time applications. web conferencing applications. It was easier to interact with students using It was easier to interact with the instructor discussion boards than it would have been using discussion boards than it would have using web conferencing. …been using web conferencing. (Note: Items on a 5 -point Likert Scale (5=Strongly Agree… 1=Strongly Disagree)

Interaction Alignment Model • How many opportunities do online students have to interact in

Questions?