DEOS Editor: Morten Flate Paulsen
Compuserve: 76436,350
Bitnet: MFP101@PSUVM

DEOS Review Committee: Toni Garcia and Philip W. Pinder
-----------------------------------------------------------------

EDITORIAL

The following article was published in The American Journal of
Distance Education last fall (Vol. 4 No. 2). I am grateful that
both the authors and AJDE allow us to post it again in
DEOSNEWS. Last fall, I conducted an audio conference where Eliza-
beth J. Burge answered questions about the following article. The
experience showed that she has mastered both the theory and prac-
tice of audio conferencing.



AUDIO-CONFERENCING IN GRADUATE EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY

by Elizabeth J. Burge and Joan L. Howard


"The simplest delivery mode for distance education classes is
audio only. It is also the most prevalent...Audio-only systems
offer the interaction format most like the traditional
classroom...(but the) novice instructor must learn new question-
ing techniques and protocols to overcome (the lack of visual
cues)" (Ostendorf 1989, 8-9).

Virginia Ostendorf's indication that new skills are required by
any instructor for audio-conferencing (AC) is correct, but we
believe that use of those new skills by instructor and course
participants should lead not to a replication of traditional
teacher-directed lecture-style classrooms, but rather to a
collaborative style characterized less by instruction than by
facilitation, less by teacher talk than by student talk. Using
Ostendorf's guiding spirit, we report as a case study our experi-
ence of AC that was designed to transform the dynamics of a
teacher-directed classroom. In doing so, we use a
learner-centered view (Brandes and Ginnes 1986; McLean 1987;
Burge 1988; Burge and Howard 1990) to outline our conceptual and
operational frameworks, report student reactions, identify what
we have learned and suggest issues and research questions for the
future.
  The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) operates
as the Graduate School of Education of the University of Toronto
and, in addition to its teaching mandate, must fulfil
province-wide research and field development mandates. This
unusual triple function places demands not only for high quality
programs and teaching but also for research and practice that is
relevant for professionals involved in pre-adult and adult
education. The added pressure from low levels of funding for
Canadian higher education generally has meant that OISE's methods
to achieve "campus-expansiveness" (Cross 1987) have had to be
relatively inexpensive but of high quality. "Low tech for high
touch," with due acknowledgement to Naisbitt (1982) became our
watchword. OISE does, in fact, have a "high tech for high touch"
process for off-campus classes; this process is computer mediated
communication (CMC), using the conferencing system PARTICIPATE
(Davie 1989; Harasim 1989).
  This report focuses on student use of the comparatively low
level technology of audio-conferencing. OISE, with a faculty of
162, has a total (full- and part-time) student enrollment of more
than 2,000; of this total, approximately 500 part-time students
live outside a ninety km radius of Toronto. OISE reaches these
students in several ways: field-based faculty teach in a local
Field Centre, while Toronto-based faculty travel to remote sites,
or use either AC or CMC. The students involved are mostly elemen-
tary and secondary school principals, teachers, and administra-
tors, with some adult educators and various community pro-
fessionals, also. As graduate-level students, they are expected
to know the theory and applications of their discipline, to
competently and critically evaluate those theories and applica-
tions, synthesize issues, and-for thesis students-contribute to
knowledge via research studies.


The Course Context

  Each student received a course manual designed to act as a
"navigation guide" rather than as a transmitter of information,
along with an agenda. The guiding function of the course manual
refers to broadly stated learning objectives for each module or
topic. Learning resources and activities include pre-class
preparation in addition to in-class small group and large group
activities. In addition, there is an extensive course bibliogra-
phy, an introductory letter from the instructor, a generic set of
guidelines for small group work and audio-conferences, and an
introduction to graduate level learning with learner's and
instructor's responsibilities outlined. The class agendas distin-
guish three groupings of learner activity: small group work via
bridging of various site groups (always without the professor
listening in), whole class work without the instructor, and whole
class work with the instructor present. The definition of class
does not depend on the presence of the instructor, but the class
is the aggregate of the students-into which the instructor makes
certain interventions. We have tried to use every possible
opportunity to encourage the learners to develop as a group that
is interdependent with, not dependent upon, the instructor. This
approach means helping the instructor to restrain her/himself
from rescuing or from filling a thoughtful silence with words, to
insist on students talking across the instructor to each other,
and to confirm, correct, and challenge students as they work at
the top three to four levels of Bloom's taxonomy-application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. All instructors are taught
how to facilitate AC learning and moderate each session: OISE's
distance learning designer is on hand during the early classes of
a course to ensure that students and professor are "learning the
ropes," growing comfortable, and building a relationship with the
AC bridge operator.
  All AC courses were subject to detailed evaluation by question-
naires sent to each participant. Closed questionnaire items
sought rated assessments of the frequency and perceived quality
of learning activities and resources. These assessments included
ratings of workload, impact of library services, faculty feed-
back, effect of reduced visual cues, and adjustment to the AC
mode. Open questions enabled respondents to explain their level
of satisfaction with the course, to indicate the least and most
successful aspects of the course, and to give advice on achieving
effective AC and its moderation. Details about the general
results are reported elsewhere (Burge and Howard, in press).


Results

  The data interpreted were drawn from the questionnaire returns
for fourteen courses. One hundred and twenty questionnaires were
analyzed; respondents on the average completed 80 percent of the
fifty open and closed questions in each questionnaire. Five
questions focussed on audio-conferencing. Response rates were
significantly higher for the questions seeking general advice on
moderating and improving the comfort level of AC for students.
Generally, students reported satisfactory experiences with their
courses. For example, summing up their overall feelings of
success in the course, students 'often' or 'almost always' felt
successful (42 percent and 45 percent respectively) (Burge and
Howard, in press).
  Respondents were asked to specify what, if anything, helped
them to feel comfortable and uncomfortable in using the AC
equipment. A majority (56.9 percent) stated simply that increased
familiarity with the equipment, from continued use, allowed them
to become more comfortable with the medium: they "just got used
to it." Some respondents (11.8 percent) credited their classmates
who had prior experience with AC with helping them to adapt and
feel at ease with the new mode of learning. The support and good
humor within the class group created an atmosphere of trust in
which the novice AC participants could relax, participate, and
learn effectively. Comments related to technology comprised 13.7
percent of the total number of responses to this question.
Students appreciated receiving help setting up equipment before a
session, and, in particular, having a CN/CN staff person avail-
able. The availability of technical expertise and advice from a
resource person and instructor made a great difference to some in
their ability to be comfortable with AC technology. Of course,
the absence of technical "glitches" and the fact that "it worked
properly" were important factors.
  On the other hand, many respondents confessed to feeling uncom-
fortable with the AC equipment and with the protocols for inter-
action via AC mode. One said, "for the first course I took I was
downright intimidated and inhibited by the equipment." Specifi-
cally, the microphone was a stumbling block for many who found it
"difficult to talk to an object" or who had trouble talking
directly into the "mike." If the telephone lines degraded, or the
equipment was not functioning well, disturbed on-line interac-
tions kept participants from proceeding in a comfortable, relaxed
atmosphere. Also, sometimes the chatter noise of other
"teleconference experts" in the class made it difficult for the
novice to feel comfortable. Many respondents reported they had
trouble joining a discussion because they didn't know "when to
jump in." Others felt stress (being "on the spot") when required
to speak. Another student felt uncomfortable "not knowing whether
each time I talk I am evaluated (or whether) the instructor is
taping the responses."
  Many suggestions were made to improve students' comfort with
AC. A large number (48.8 percent) of responses referred to
aspects of technical upgrade generally. Specifically, students
recommended an easier, less frustrating microphone system: (1)
improve the system so students "don't have to hold down the
button to talk"; (2) provide each student with a clip-on or
around-the-neck style microphone as "sharing is sometimes awk-
ward"; or (3) install an omni-directional microphone for whole
class discussions. Calls for a better response system and some
form of speakers' protocol reflected students' concerns about
"jumping in," interjecting, and questioning as discussions were
in progress.
  The lack of visual cues in the AC classroom presented a diffi-
cult challenge to many students. Some suggested using video-
cassettes or preferably some form of personal contact between
instructor and students at various local sites, i.e. "make sure
both groups meet each other face-to-face at least once early in
the course." As an alternative to a face-to-face meeting, one
respondent suggested that a brief biography and photo of each
student at other course sites could "encourage a 'getting to know
you' feeling" and thus make the entire class a more cohesive,
friendly, and supportive group. The need to create a friendly
"ambiance" and a recognition that "humor helps" was frequently
expressed in suggestions for some informal contact time and some
lighthearted banter.
  Among a number of suggestions related directly to the attitudes
and abilities of students themselves were: learn to speak slowly
and clearly, keep individual presentations brief and concise,
don't ramble on and squander valuable air time, and come well
prepared to each class. Other suggestions were directed to the
instructor: give time to reflect; think about additions and
interjections; use on-line time efficiently-don't waste it making
housekeeping decisions; allow time to work together off-line as a
group before joining other groups on-line; provide plenty of
feedback; organize and clarify response procedures by naming
sites or individuals, or having a pre-arranged response sequence;
be a dynamic facilitator.
  Advice for the chair or moderator of AC was plentiful. In fact,
twice as many codable comments were made in response to this
question as compared to any other AC question. More than half of
those comments related to the facilitation skills of the instruc-
tor and the interpersonal dynamics of the AC classroom. Moder-
ators were first advised to develop a personal rapport with
students: use first names to encourage individual students to
speak, especially those who never speak because they are not
assertive; "ask specific people specific questions" to avoid
monopoly of air time; and allow for some friendly chit chat and
personal interaction that "makes us feel significant in some
way." Feedback, especially positive feedback, is important to
many respondents. Don't forget, students reminded us that "nice
comments give confidence."
  The moderator must also maintain firm control of the dis-
cussion. He or she must continually focus on the topic, monitor
the length of responses (cutting off "people who ramble on," if
necessary), clarify student responses, provide additional infor-
mation wherever possible, and repeat, clarify, summarize, and
confirm understanding before continuing.
  The second largest group of comments reflected students' need
for clear planning and organization by the moderator with regard
to logistics of equipment use and maintenance, as well as time
management. Advance organization at the local site should be a
priority for a moderator; this includes verifying all equipment
and connections, checking sound quality before the class session,
and knowing how to operate all the equipment. Inexperience was
not seen by respondents as an excuse for technical slip ups:
advance planning and practice were seen as obligatory. Even more
important than technology management was time management (and by
implication, productivity). Some respondents thus advised: "Save
discussions of personal papers for personal calls, or at the
break"; also "having (a pre-planned) agenda and questions to
prepare for class gave us an opportunity to have material ready
and be able to contribute to class discussion." Some respondents
spoke highly of one instructor's practice of allowing "time off
the air for students to discuss and to prepare as a group..."
(This practice was, in fact, well used by most instructors.)
Another respondent claimed that "reporting results of small group
discussions is more effective than conducting a discussion
on-line." Another thought that the instructor should not "feel
threatened by the occasional silence" and that the "energy level,
6-9 p.m., is very low for most people-don't be discouraged by
quiet spells."
  Students advised the hypothetical moderator to plan and organ-
ize course materials and AC class procedures carefully: ensure
that the course manual would include a variety of print formats
(activity sheets, reference material, documents, graphs); use a
variety of activities for individual, pair, or small group work;
vary assignment types and reporting techniques; break up long
blocks of presentation time with small group and/or individual
activities; and be flexible in response to spontaneous interac-
tions or events. We conclude that respondents were looking for
facilitative approaches to learning and to teacher-student
interaction, and for quality course materials and
learner-centered activities. Much of the advice for a moderator
and many of the suggestions for course improvement were, in fact,
being implemented across courses, and we suspect that some advice
and suggestions were based on recall of novice behaviors of
faculty and students alike. Other comments, we suspect, were made
as generic suggestions regardless of the student's immediate AC
experience.
  The effects of the AC context on various internal and
external-to-the-learner learning processes were probed in the
last closed question. The question was exploratory since we had
seen no similar question either discussed by our peers or used in
actual instruments. We wanted to discover if students felt the AC
was inhibiting across all major class dynamics and learning
processes, as some of our colleagues had informally predicted.
Respondents were asked to rate the effect of reduced visual cues
on seventeen affective and cognitive, intrapersonal and interper-
sonal learning processes. The items examined included specific
learning skills, aspects of group dynamics, and interactive
relationships with peers and the instructor. The items were
originally listed in random order; however, for reporting pur-
poses the items were regrouped so that the response patterns are
more readily apparent. Given was a choice of four options:
facilitative, no discernible effect, inhibiting, and not
sure(results appear in Table 1).

Table 1. Students' perceptions of the effects of the absence of
visual cues in AC on aspects of learning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                              Facili-    No Dis-   Inhibi-   Not
                              tating     cernible  ting      sure
                                        effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learning Skills
---------------
  Understanding the ideas     3.5%       55.8%     37.2%      3.5%
  of other students

  Understanding what the      4.4        69.0      21.1       4.5
  instructor was saying

  How much I learned          10.5       62.3      15.8       11.4
  overall

  Generating ideas             6.1        61.7      31.3       0.9

  Solving problems             6.0        61.5      29.1       3.4

  Critically assessing        17.1       56.0      25.9       1.0
  my experience

Interactive Technology
----------------------
  Reducing distractions       26.1       34.0      33.8       6.1

  Focusing my attention       15.5       32.0      49.1       3.4
  to the task

  Feeling able to interrupt   5.2       20.9       70.4      3.5

  Knowing what others         5.2        21.6      69.8       3.4
  thought of what I said

  Synchronizing responses     4.3        25.0      63.8       6.9
  in free discussions

  Taking turns at talking     18.9       38.8      38.0       4.3

Group Dynamics
--------------
  Feeling included in         13.9       33.1      47.8       5.2
  group/class

  Feeling able to joke        12.0       47.0      31.6       9.4
  and have some fun

  Feeling that others         24.4       32.8      37.0       5.8
  respected my contributions

Relationships
-------------
  Developing social           12.8       38.4      44.0       4.8
  relationships

  Getting to know              5.9        32.5      55.6       6.0
  the instructor


The first group of items is related to key internal learning
processes. For each one of these processes, both receptive and
productive, the majority responses indicated the absence of
visual cues had "no discernible effect" on the respondent's
ability to comprehend subject matter, respond critically and
creatively, and generate ideas. In fact, in five of the six
cases, the response rate for "no discernible effect" was more
than twice the response rate for "inhibiting." Only in the first
item, "understanding the ideas of others," was the margin of
difference somewhat smaller with 55.8 percent reporting no effect
while 37.2 percent were inhibited.
  The second group of items referred to aspects of external
interactive processes. Here the responses were not reassuring. As
one might expect from students' comments discussed earlier, the
responses reflect students' concerns and difficulties with
interpersonal communications. For four of the six items, students
found the absence of visual cues to be inhibiting. Certainly
students felt inhibited in interrupting an AC conversation in
progress (70.4 percent), also in synchronizing their responses
during the flow of discussion (63.8 percent). They were often not
able to know what other participants thought about their contri-
butions (69.8 percent). Respondents reported less difficulty with
turn taking, with almost equal numbers finding themselves to be
unaffected by the absence of visual cues (38.8 percent) as found
themselves to be inhibited (38.0 percent). Similarly, responses
were spread evenly for the first item, "reducing distractions,"
where over one quarter of respondents (26.1 percent) in fact
found the AC mode was facilitative in reducing distractions.
  Assessments relevant to the third and fourth groups of
items-group dynamics and relationships-showed a more even dis-
tribution over the response categories. Some respondents noted
that the absence of visual cues had no effect on their feelings
of inclusion in the group nor on their feelings of confidence
that their contribution was respected by others in the group
(33.1 percent and 32.8 percent). A larger group, however, felt
inhibited in both areas (47.8 percent and 37.0 percent respect-
ively). Regarding feeling free to joke and have fun, more respon-
dents were unaffected by AC than were inhibited by it (47.0
percent and 31.6 percent respectively). Some respondents con-
sidered social relationships difficult to establish in AC without
visual cues: 44.0 percent claimed to be inhibited, but 38.4
percent reported AC as having no effect. Getting to know the
instructor was more difficult for 55.6 percent while 32.5 percent
reported no difference.
  Clearly, more investigations should be carried out to determine
user reactions to the absence of visual cues, but we believe our
modest exploration shows at least one interesting result and
allows us to ask several questions. The chief result appears to
be that while a clear majority of students felt AC to be inhibit-
ing in terms of getting feedback from others, interrupting
others, and synchronizing responses in free discussions, they did
not feel any discernible effects of AC on their more internal
learning processes-understanding instructor input, generating
ideas, solving problems, and critically assessing their experi-
ence. This result matches research done elsewhere (Williams and
Chapanis 1976). In terms of how much students learned overall,
not only did a clear majority feel no effects, but 10.5 percent
of respondents also indicated facilitative effects of AC. To find
adequate explanations for the results would require new ques-
tions, an improved instrument, and some qualitative methods of
data collection and analysis. The following are some questions
for such a study: If technically the AC equipment could ensure
easy interruptions and the synchronizing of discussions, might
students increase their skills in giving verbal feedback, both
affective and cognitive? Would the "No discernible effects"
results for the internal learning processes be then significantly
affected? Would the students actually interrupt or "jump in," or
do they just want to know they can if they need to? To what
extent can the absence of visual cues account for the results
concerning relationships, inclusion, and focussing attention to
task? Would we see any significant gender-based differences in
responses given that women are traditionally socialized into
certain styles and functions of conversation? How important are
human relationships in audio-based classes and how should they be
nurtured? How would the responses vary according to the teaching
model used by the instructor?


Conclusions

  Responses from students in this case study of graduate-level AC
learning are of course not generalizable, but they give us cause
to reflect on how to help students use the medium
interdependently and assertively. Students in general were
satisfied with their courses and with their learning experiences
via AC. They indicated a willingness to accept new forms of
organization of all the necessary components, namely, resources,
small and large group activities, time allocation, variety in
activity, and changed instructor-student relationships. Most
students quickly got used to the AC equipment procedures without
undue stress. Also, most students were not adversely affected by
the absence of visual cues. Our initial assumptions were proven
correct.
  Respondents were very clear about their requirements for what
we term productivity and technology management, and those re-
quirements focus as much on peer behavior and technology perform-
ance as they do on the instructor's attitudes and skills. Our
student comments came out of a particular context-one that was
structured to avoid on-line lecturing and to promote student-to--
student interactions on and off-line with confirming, challeng-
ing, and correcting interventions by the instructor. What was
important here was not the "design of the educational message"
(Moore 1988, 6 and 7), because these graduate students had to
create their own substantive dialogues; the challenge was to
create the interactive conditions for feeling and being success-
ful. This interdependence model for delivery is not, in our
experience, widespread in distance education. Our students'
admonitions for instructors to be "personal," to keep control,
and to give feedback were not unexpected and are a major part of
the "how-to-AC" manuals. What was less expected, however, were
their requests for their peers to have good presentation and
communication skills.
  While this case study has too many contextual limitations and
variables between courses for adequate comparison with experience
elsewhere, it does remind us of several key points. Students
understand and accept the need for a balancing act: the
facilitator maintains a fine balance between being quiet to
enable informal "thinking talk" and being authoritative in terms
of confirming and correcting learning, connecting students to
resources, and challenging them to further critical and creative
heights; all AC participants maintain a balance between holding
their listeners' attention and dominating the discussion to the
exclusion of others. These students remind us that because of the
reduced visual cues attention must be paid to the interactive
courtesies of a quiet and attentive classroom and to local site
group dynamics so that participants can join in an ordered
sequence of speakers without feeling the pressure of having to
interrupt. Furthermore, affective elements are as important in
the AC classroom as they are in the traditional classroom.
Friendly behavior, a relaxed atmosphere, and some casual banter
and humor go a long way to ease the tension and frustration felt
by many in new learning conditions.
We indicated earlier several questions deserving further re-
search attention that have emerged from the analysis of data in
this exploratory case study. The instrument used, although
modest, appears to be unique in its examination of the interac-
tive relationships in the AC classroom and in the exploration of
one of its chief characteristics, the absence of visual cues.
Further investigations must more fully explore that characteris-
tic as well as others-for example, spontaneity, pacing,
organization-that will help the graduate learner to evaluate
information, synthesize issues, analyze his or her professional
experience, articulate findings and, finally, develop new knowl-
edge.


References

Brandes, D., and P. Ginnes. 1986. A Guide to Student-Centred
   Learning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Burge, E. J. 1988. Beyond andragogy: Implications for course
   design. Journal of Distance Education  III(1):5-23.
Burge, E. J., and J. L. Howard. 1990. Graduate level distance
   education: The students speak. Canadian Journal of University
   Continuing Education  XVI(1):49-65.
Burge, E. J., and J. L. Howard. In press. Learner Centeredness:
   Views of Canadian Distance Educators. Scottish Journal of
   Adult Education.
Cross, K. P. 1987. The changing role of higher education in the
   United States. Higher Education Research and Development
   6(2):99-108.
Davie, L. E. 1989. Facilitation techniques for the on-line tutor.
   In Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education,
   eds. R. Mason and A. Kaye, 74-85. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Harasim, L. 1989. On-line education: A new domain. In Mindweave:
   Communication, Computers and Distance Education, eds. R. Mason
   and A. Kaye, 50-62. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McLean, H. 1987. Linking person-centred teaching to qualitative
   research training. In Appreciating adults learning: From the
   learner's perspective, eds. D. Boud and V. Griffin, 127-136.
   London: Kogan Page.
Moore, M. G. 1988. Editorial: Telecommunications, international
   ism and distance education. The American Journal of Distance
   Education 2(1):1-7.
Naisbitt, J. 1982. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.
Ostendorf, V. A. 1989. What Every Principal, Teacher and School
   Board Member Should Know About Distance Education. Littleton,
   CO: Virginia A. Ostendorf, Inc.
Williams, E., and A. Chapanis. 1976. A review of the psychologi
   cal research in comparing communications media. In The Status
   of the Telephone in Education. Proceedings of the Second
   International Conference. Madison, WI: University of
   Wisconsin.

Top of Page

The American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ACSDE)
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
110 Rackley Building
University Park, PA 16802-3202
Phone (814) 863-3764  FAX (814) 865-5878
ACSDE@psu.edu
www.ed.psu.edu/ACSDE

©2001 The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education