--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ####### ######## ######## ########### ### ### ## ### ## # ### # Interpersonal Computing and ### ### ## ### ## ### Technology: ### ### ## ### ### An Electronic Journal for ### ######## ### ### the 21st Century ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ## ### ISSN: 1064-4326 ### ### ### ## ### April 1996 ####### ### ######## ### Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 37-46 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Department of Education University of Maryland Baltimore County Additional support provided by Georgetown University This article is archived as CONTENTS IPCTV4N2 on LISTSERV@LISTSERV.GEORGETOWN.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 37 + UNIVERSITY - NATCHAUG INTEGRATED VOICE, VIDEO & DATA LINK Michael Young, Ph.D. & Pam Campbell, Ph.D. University of Connecticut, INTRODUCTION The University and Natchaug School entered into a partnership with two corporations to establish an integrated voice, video and data link, using fiber, coax and twisted pair connections. This system included full video conferencing capabilities as well as the ability of each site to control the resources of the other. In the process of using the network, we learned several things. We learned that the best users of the systems were students. We learned that technological systems are embedded in social systems, and the technology can add new burdens for maintaining courteous and respectful private interactions. We learned that building such a system is a dynamic ongoing process, that often relies heavily on the good will and trust of the collaborating organizations. And, we learned that success (even limited success) breeds its own problems. An instructional problem: The need to restructure schools and schooling has become a nationally recognized issue. For example, the recently redesigned teacher preparation program at the University of Connecticut (UConn) is demonstrating a commitment to the simultaneous renewal of our nation's schools and the preparation of future teachers. Simultaneous renewal is possible only when all partners in the process believe in their individual ability to effect change and know that their work is valued by others (Goodlad, 1994). Communication among all participants in the change process is essential and, unfortunately, frequently compromised when new initiatives are implemented. However at UConn, networking technology is helping to address these problems. Students are admitted to the School of Education in their junior year of college. All students fulfill general University requirements and complete a subject area major in the Liberal Arts and Sciences; as well as coursework in elementary, secondary, special, music, or physical education. Consequently, graduates of the Integrated Bachelors/Masters (IB/M) Program fulfill the requirements for an undergraduate degree in the Liberal Arts and Sciences, as well as a Master's degree in Education in five years of college (Case, Norlander, and Reagan, 1993). IB/M students fulfill many on-campus requirements; however, from their first day in the program, they are simultaneously engaged in school-based experiences that provide a context for the + Page 38 + coursework. Students serve in various roles as participant/ observers, tutors, student teachers, researchers, and change agents. University faculty are also present. They serve various roles in the schools in the form of supervision, professional development, and access to university services (e.g., Internet-accessible mainframe computer accounts and electronic library services). The presence of large numbers of students and faculty in schools (cohorts) is essential in moving the agenda of renewal and reform forward. Extensive collaboration with school is possible through the establishment of Professional Development Centers (PDCs) -- agreements between local schools or school districts and the teacher preparation program to work together. At the present time, the IB/M program has established eight PDCs that provide students and faculty with a range of experiences in urban, suburban, and rural settings. However, despite the concentration of effort and placement within these centers, a major instructional problem remains. Many University faculty serve multiple roles as course instructors, seminar leaders, advisors, and PDC coordinators who serve many of the 300 students who are placed in as many as 25 schools in the PDCs. A great deal of student time is spent in these clinic settings which are at some distance from the university. Consequently, establishing a meaningful, accurate, and ongoing dialogue among the students, between the students and their advisors, and between university faculty and school based personnel is especially challenging. However, within one school, Natchaug School, many of these challenges are being addressed successfully using an integrated voice, video and data network. One Innovative School Setting: Natchaug School is one of four elementary schools located within one of three urban PDCs affiliated with the IB/M Program at UConn. Despite surroundings that suggest a rural context, the members of the Natchaug community confront daily challenges that parallel those typically faced by their colleagues in larger cities. Students at Natchaug mirror their community; many are hungry, disinherited, different, and/or disabled. However, their teachers, principal, and other members of the Natchaug Community choose to focus on possibilities and proactive programs that afford all students equal opportunities and access to success. Those at Natchaug are, in fact, encouraged to propose, develop, and implement new programs and innovative ideas. It is in this context that a series of experiences became both possible and operational through the use of new technologies--technologies only possible through the framing of new patterns of partnership between private and public enterprises. Facility with educational technology varies widely among the faculty. As in many places, there a few key staff + Page 39 + members who are willing to take risks and have an abiding interest in the interesting environments that educational technology can create. However, in our case there was also an advantage to choosing participants who, although they were risk-takers, had not ventured much into the realm of technology. The advantage turned out to be a willingness to rely on student help to get things working and to engage even 4th graders in the frequent problem-solving process of making the system work each day. Of course, nearly any change one might bring to a classroom will create initial excitement. But an untested system like that that was established for our project brought with it many initial headaches and frustrations, and few initial unabashed successes. An Integrated Network: The University and Natchaug School entered into a partnership with two corporations to establish an integrated voice, video and data link, using fiber, coaxial and twisted pair connections. This system included full video conferencing capabilities as well as the ability of each site to control the resources of the other. Southern New England Telephone (SNET) provided a portion of the phone and fiber links between the locations. Dynacom provided switching capability for remotely controlling resources that included Macintosh and IBM computers, as well as CDI, videotape, and videodisc players. These resources were located in one central location (headend) at each site. At Natchaug, the headend was located in a fourth grade classroom; at the University, the headend was located in the library. Three rooms in the School of Education and two at the elementary school were equipped with pan/tilt remote control cameras, and wireless microphones for video conferencing. In addition, the TV broadcast studio at the University was fully interactive with the University headend. Several other locations on campus and at the school had display-only capabilities through a touch panel and remote control. Consequently, all resources at one headend or in any classroom were instantly accessible in all other classrooms, regardless of location; and teachers in any classroom could control resources at the headend or cameras in another classroom by using a simple hand-held control panel. For example, a student at Natchaug could have a videoconference with a student at the University; a group of preservice teachers might interact with their practicing colleagues; or a supervisor at the University might arrange a three-way conference with a student teacher and the school based mentor. An expert in technology at Natchaug might demonstrate her expertise remotely to a class at the University. A rare collection of photographs, a set of historically important documents, an exceptional artistic performance, an important piece of student work, an essential dialogue--all, regardless of their location, were available to all through this distributed system. Several examples of the initial trial of such possibilities (Use Models), implemented by University and Natchaug faculty are provided next. + Page 40 + USE MODELS PIES: A Window into University Research During the spring of 1995, the first year of a program was broadcast from the university TV studio throughout the State using a microwave relay system called Knowledge Network. The Partners in Exploring Science (PIES) Project was an innovative initiative that brought together a doctoral student in Physics and grade school students throughout the State, including fourth graders at Natchaug School. The objective of the program, sponsored by Project CONSTRUCT and funded by the National Science Foundation, was to show students the real process of science, with its set-backs, frustrations, discoveries, and expectations. Stacey Vargas, a UConn student in experimental physics, was studying the laser properties of Gadolinium crystals and receiving an assistantship for sharing her work with curious fourth graders. Through archival video of her experiments and the live broadcast of her personal recollections and reflections of the process of being a scientist, she was able to share the experience of being a researcher in ten weekly shows. Using the integrated voice, video and data link with the University, students at Natchaug were in a unique position to interact live with Stacey during her broadcasts. As with a satellite videoconference, elementary students at Natchaug raised their hands and Stacey, in the University broadcast studio, called on the students to ask their questions live on the air. This immediate interaction between Stacey and the students served two equally important purposes. First, the conversations enabled students at Natchaug to learn about Stacey's research, as well as the life of a scientist--personally and professionally. Second, the process enabled Stacey to remember and respect the perspectives of young scientists--information that might be essential to their teachers, or perhaps contribute to her interpretation of her findings. For example, in the first broadcast Stacey anticipated running her experiment. In the second broadcast we showed Stacey (on video from the previous week) as she went into the lab and tried to turn on the 20-year old laser. A leaky roof and years of use had destroyed several components in her laser that she would spend the next few weeks trying to have repaired by the only service person who deals with these lasers on the East Coast. This incident enabled Stacey to talk to student viewers about the "real life" nature of science, with its emotional ups and downs, frustrations and triumphs and need to be creative as problem arise along with opportunities. Stacey ran an alternative experiment that week and found that she must spend time calibrating her equipment and fabricating a new piece of apparatus to hold her sample. Students at Natchaug were there to share the progress and to ask questions. They asked, + Page 41 + "Why did you decide to do that?" "What will you do next?" She quipped, "I'll go swimming to ease the frustration." She asks the students, "What do you think I should do next?" In this way fourth grade students shared in the problem-solving process. A survey of participating teachers and students revealed that elementary students generally felt positive toward the broadcasts. On a 1 to 10 scale, 34% rated PIES 8 or above, 48% rated it 4-7, only 20% rated it less than 4. When asked it they "prefer PIES to science in text books," 78% agreed (rated 4 or 5). Our survey data suggest that student interest in the technology itself was minimal, and represented little change from what they would otherwise expect. Rather, student responses to the PIES broadcasts suggested that they paid little attention to the way they interacted with the graduate student, and instead focused on those aspects of the interaction that they liked or did not like. For example, 72% agreed "There was too much studio talk in the PIES program." Our data also highlighted the need to be sensitive to gender differences in the use of such advanced technology-based systems. In our survey results for PIES, on 7 of 11 items, a significantly higher percent of males gave a more positive response. Uconn Students Teaching One Another During the spring of 1995 on Wednesday afternoons at the close of the school day, two groups of University students gathered--one group at Natchaug School and the other in a seminar room in the School of Education on the University campus. Their virtual collaboration was made possible by the network link between schools. In sum, 35 students--20 student teachers and 15 graduate interns--all engaged in that PDC--came together. Early in the semester, graduate students offered their wisdom to the undergraduate teachers regarding the student teaching experience. Later in the semester, the groups reassembled to debate critical issues such as their responsibility for educating all students, the ways in which tracking and grouping practices impact access to knowledge, and the relationship of inclusion and integration policies to daily practice in schools and classrooms. During the final session, all participants spoke honestly of the process of moving from a limited classroom-based perspective to a more global perspective in the Master's year. One intern recalled that when she was a student teacher she did have time to consider what was going on in the rest of the school. Her total focus was centered on her students and their classroom. However, as an intern, responsible for developing and implementing several school-wide programs, she now saw each classroom, student, and teacher, in the context of the whole school community. The words and interactions of all students highlighted their ability to teach one another and engage in informed dialogues about their work. + Page 42 + Natchaug Students and Uconn Students Teaching One Another Earlier in the academic year, a group of university undergraduates preparing to teach students with special needs gathered in a seminar room on campus to meet Chris (virtually using the network link), a fifth grader at Natchaug School. Their University instructor also happened to be the Coordinator of Natchaug's PDC and had met Chris in the spring of the same year in her simultaneous role as supervisor of a Uconn student teacher placed in Chris' fourth grade classroom. At that time, Chris had shared one of his stories with her and also described his writing process. Six months later, he agreed to revisit his writing (content and process) and share his thoughts with future teachers at the University, made possible through the network link. Consequently, in the fall of 1994, twenty-one students at Uconn had the opportunity to review Chris' writing and formulate individual questions. Then, together with Chris, they talked at length about how he had selected his topic; formulated his objectives; and developed his story line. They discussed the process of writing, editing, and publication and shared in Chris' thinking as he revisited his work, considered possible revisions, and listened to his present intentions as an author. Chris learned that a group of future teachers at UConn could appreciate his work and care about his writing. The UConn students learned, firsthand and simultaneously, to respect the writing process and the thinking of novice authors. At the end of their discussion, Chris told his new teaching friends that he might write "a little more" because they had given him some new ideas. Later in that same year, a group of 125 students enrolled in a University course on learning models met in a large auditorium at the University; they listened as their instructor described the benefits and techniques of cooperative learning. Using the network link between the University and Natchaug, he then (virtually) entered a Natchaug classroom along with his large audience to connect theory with practice. Via the network system, prospective teachers were able not only to observe a demonstration/lesson in progress; they were also able to engage in the process of reflection about effective practice as they asked the young learners how their teacher motivated them to learn and why they had responded in certain ways. Students at Natchaug also learned that a group of future teachers at the University cared about their work and experiences as students at Natchaug School. Natchaug Teachers Teaching UConn Student and Faculty. Urban schools typically represent the diverse populations in which they are located. Language differences present only one + Page 43 + clearly evident example of this diversity. For some learners who are entering the English language culture, a learning situation that respects their own language while introducing them to the culture of the majority language is their only educational hope. This is information that all future teachers need to know. Consequently, together with one of us (a member of the UConn faculty), Peri-Ann, a third grade teacher at Natchaug, prepared a 10 minute videotape to orient prospective viewers (future teachers) to her methods and instructional techniques. The network connection between the University and Natchaug enabled the recording of classroom interactions. Now, anyone wishing to take advantage of the opportunity to visit Peri-Ann's classroom (live at the school or virtually through the network link) can begin the interaction with this orientation. Organizing and "touching base" Given the complexity of learning situations that occur within the relatively new culture of school- and university-based renewal activities, it is not so surprising that faculty within university and PDC's settings such as Natchaug have infrequent occasions to meet and participate in honest and productive conversations about their work. Those within the university setting often find their role defined in traditional ways as an "outsider" or "expert". Those within the school-based setting face similar constraints when their work is defined in traditional ways as an "insider" or "practitioner" roles. Investment in creative and forward-thinking partnerships that include advanced technologies such as an integrated voice, video, and data network offer educators an opportunity to rethink and redefine tradition. The virtual links afford opportunities for more frequent contact and a richer diversity of contexts and roles for participants. In our case, we found ourselves as participants in touch with our colleagues more often, and even just "touching base" through the network without a prescheduled meeting. This social aspect to the link must be acknowledged and factored in to the viability of any such system. WHAT WE LEARNED First, we learned that such a system could be established technically and socially, even in times of severe financial constraints. The link was important and valuable, as evidenced by the intense campaign waged to keep the system after its trial period had elapsed. The school system was hard-pressed to put large sums of money into purchase or maintenance of an elaborate system that served only one school. Yet, through negotiation and support from the business community the network and the partnership continues. Second, we learned that the best users of the systems were students. Fourth grade students wound up running the system each day, connecting microphones, booting computers, and scheduling + Page 44 + events for other classrooms. Students' skills and abilities as well as their willingness to undertake such responsibilities were an important part of the success of the network. They derived the most benefit from working with the system, not just learning from it (Soloman, Perkins, and Globerson, 1991). Third, we learned that technological systems are embedded in social systems, and the technology can add new burdens for maintaining courteous and respectful private interactions. For example, while university personnel could "look into" the elementary school classroom at any time, that was simply not appropriate. Activating the video network (e.g., the sound of the panning and tilting of the camera) could be disruptive and even unethical, so ground rules needed to be established. One ground rule established that a phone call would preceded any activation of the remote camera, not only for courtesy sake, but also to afford the teacher time to prepare for the distraction. Also, the logistical arrangements of the equipment were, at times, in exact opposition to instructional goals and objectives. Specifically, the physical separation of cameras and monitors within one classroom often resulted in participants facing a monitor (where they could see their distant colleagues) rather than the instructor in the room or the camera (virtual classmates). Consequently, University seminar leaders found they could not establish their usual group atmosphere with either their live or virtual students due to a change in classroom dynamics. In short, technological systems must be viewed as situated in the broader culture and must be planned for and used as tools to meet authentic needs (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989). Fourth, we learned that building such a system is a dynamic ongoing process, that often relies heavily on the good will and trust of the collaborating organizations. For example, the school district decided to commit to the integrated system in a big way following the trial period, including the system throughout a new middle school under construction and planning to expand the system into the local high school. This level of commitment required School Board, community, and staff support. It also included joint grant writing activities between the University and the school district. If after such a commitment on the part of the school district, the University were to decide to change its system or to focus its resource sharing elsewhere, there could be a major problem. Fifth, we learned that success (even limited success) breeds its own problems. One example was the expanding interests by educators outside the school district in seeing demonstrations and getting information about the system. In one instance, demonstrations planned for outside viewers conflicted with use of + Page 45 + the system to meet an immediate instructional need of the PIES program. Our efforts to use the system productively for educational purposes wound up conflicting with a need to share information about the project. Sixth, we were alerted to the need to be sensitive to gender differences when using advanced educational technology. In our PIES broadcasts which presented a female physics student working at the University, male students appeared to respond positively to the broadcasts in greater numbers than females. This leads us to be continuously cautious about ensuring equal gender participation in becoming familiar and comfortable with the system and to provide in our use models of both genders communicating and learning with the system. Finally, we learned that we have only begun to explore the potential of this system. As participants become more familiar with system capabilities, they begin to take better advantage of the resources provided by the system. As the system's trial period ended, teachers were asking for additional participants from the University and brainstorming about ways to expand and refine the use of the system. They also spoke of how their students were integrating the PIES discussion into later work in the classroom. These uses of an integrated voice, video and data network described in this paper hold promise for enriching the interactions between the university and the elementary school (particularly PDC's), between preservice teachers and their faculty mentors, among preservice teachers at the university and in the field, and between grade school students and world, at the university and through its resources well beyond. References Brown, J.S., Collins, A, & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb, 32-42. Case, C. W., Norlander, K. A., & Reagan, T. G. (1993). Refections on reflection-- Looking back over six years: The design of the University of Connecticut's teacher preparation program. Center Correspondent, 5, 2-3 & 25-31. Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Franscico: Jossey-Bass. Soloman, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20 (3), 2-9. ----------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 46 + BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Dr. Young is Associate Professor of Cognition and Instruction at the University of Connecticut. In addition to teaching graduate courses in Educational Technology and Instructional Design, he conducts an advanced seminar on Situated Cognition. His research concerns how learning technologies (designed interactive environments, hypertext, and integrated networks for distance learning) can enhance thinking and learning. myoung@UConnVM.UConn.Edu http://yoda.ucc.uconn.edu/users/youngm/youngM.html Dr. Campbell is Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Connecticut. In addition to her teaching responsibilities in the teacher preparation program, she serves as coordinator with a local Professional Development Center school system. campb@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century Copyright 1996 University of Maryland Baltimore County. Copyright of individual articles in this publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by the University of Maryland Baltimore County. It is asked that any republication of this article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J. Contributions to IPCT-J can be submitted by electronic mail in APA style to: Susan Barnes, Editor IPCT-J SBBARNES@PIPLELINE.COM