FACILITATING LEARNING WITH WEB CONFERENCING
Recommendations based on Learners’ Experiences
Sarah Cornelius
and Carole Gordon
School of Education, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, U.K.
Keywords: Web Conferencing, Virtual Classrooms, Learners’ Experiences, Guidelines for Facilitators.
Abstract: This paper reports some of the findings from a study undertaken to obtain an insight into the experiences of
learners engaging with web conferencing. A small group of work-based adult learners with substantial
experience of learning in a virtual classroom provided accounts of and reflections on their experiences using
a blog and group interview. Qualitative analysis of data led to findings which support some existing best
practice guidelines for facilitators and also provide additional insight into issues that impact on learners’
experiences. This paper presents our emerging recommendations for facilitators and explores some of the
issues raised by learners including the effective use of breakout rooms, the management of minimalist
learners and the need to respect learners’ privacy. A facilitation approach which allows learners to develop
autonomy and exert control in the virtual classroom and which acknowledges diversity of learning
preferences is suggested. Whilst the recommendations made may not be appropriate in all learning contexts,
they are presented as a starting point to help other facilitators review and develop their own practice.
1 INTRODUCTION
Teaching with web conferencing raises many
challenges for facilitators. Ng (2007), for example,
notes that working with synchronous technology can
be demanding and stressful for tutors and it has been
observed that in some contexts teachers do not make
full use of the interactive features available and rely
on teacher-led strategies (Murphy et al., 2011).
These challenges might be, in part, due to the fact
that many facilitators have limited experience as
learners in virtual classrooms, and this may make it
difficult for them to appreciate what the experience
is like for their own learners. The possibility of a
‘duality’ of experience exists: learners and facilitator
can be engaged in different activities and there may
be no connection or communication between them.
For example, if learners are asked to view a video
clip for discussion, the facilitator cannot easily tell
whether learners are annoyed or confused by the
content, enjoying it, having technical problems, or
indeed checking their email or engaged in an
alternative activity. Some of the important clues that
would indicate in a face-to-face context how a
session is going, and how participants are
responding, are unavailable to a facilitator. Despite
the use of web cams and other media, or software
tools such as emoticons, facilitators may feel at
times they are ‘teaching to a wall’ or talking ‘into
the ether’ (Cornelius, 2011).
A range of helpful guidelines are available to
encourage facilitators to use tools appropriately and
promote interaction and engagement (e.g.
Chatterton, 2010; Sampson and Shepherd, 2010;
Shepherd, Green and Sampson, 2011), but these
often focus on appropriate use of the tools, and
rarely make clear the evidence behind their
recommendations. There is a need for further
research into practice with web conferencing,
together with appropriate models and pedagogic
strategies (Wang and Hsu, 2008; de Freitas and
Neumann, 2009).
There is clear need to share and promote good
practices to support online teachers (Ng, 2007), and
as the number and diversity of web conferencing
users increases, there are opportunities to gather
empirical evidence to help evaluate what constitutes
effective practice in different contexts. We hope the
study reported here will contribute to an emerging
body of evidence on learners’ and facilitators’
experiences of web conferencing. It focuses on the
experiences of a small number of work-based adult
learners to try to illuminate some of the ‘blind spots’
which challenge virtual classroom facilitators.
373
Cornelius S. and Gordon C..
FACILITATING LEARNING WITH WEB CONFERENCING - Recommendations based on Learners’ Experiences.
DOI: 10.5220/0003898903730378
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 373-378
ISBN: 978-989-8565-07-5
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
2 THE CONTEXT
Web conferencing sessions have been an integral
part of the online version of the Teaching
Qualification in Further Education (TQFE)
programme at the University of Aberdeen since
2009. Six cohorts of learners (over 60 in total) have
completed the programme using an approach which
blends the use of online activities delivered via a
virtual learning environment, tutor led workshops in
Elluminate, and student-led collaborative
investigations. Learners on the programme are all in-
service lecturers from Scottish Further Education
colleges. They are geographically dispersed,
represent a variety of professional and vocational
subject areas, have diverse academic backgrounds
and varying levels of IT confidence and expertise.
Following a face-to-face induction session, web
conferencing is accessed by participants from their
home or work location and used throughout the
programme to provide a variety of learning
experiences including:
Workshops. Regular sessions involving up to 12
learners including tutor led activities such as
icebreakers, individual activities, large and small
group discussions, short presentations and student-
led activities such as poster ‘presentations’. They
include frequent opportunities for interaction using
audio, text, whiteboard tools, emoticons and polling
tools. During workshops web conferencing may be
combined with the use of external resources
including web sites, YouTube videos and
documents.
Tutorials. These are shorter sessions which focus
on assignment tasks and include tutor led activities
and discussions with smaller groups on assignment
related study skills.
Open office sessions. Tutors make themselves
available for consultation by individual learners
during virtual office hours. Where these sessions
address assignment related issues file sharing is a
commonly used tool.
Student-led meetings. Learners are required to
work collaboratively to investigate problems and
issues relevant to their professional practice and
groups are encouraged to use web conferencing to
facilitate teamwork between geographically
dispersed group members. Some groups use web
conferencing on a regular basis, to facilitate
interaction, whilst others find alternative ways of
collaborating.
A learner who completes the online TQFE will have
completed more than 40 hours of study time using
web conferencing. Thus they can be regarded as
experienced users, who have developed a high level
of familiarity and confidence with web conferencing
software. Seven tutors have been involved in the
design and delivery of online session, with new
tutors working alongside a more experienced
colleague for a time to help them develop their
facilitation skills. All tutors are highly experienced
facilitators across a range of educational sectors and
settings.
3 THE RESEARCH
Participants on the online TQFE are regularly asked
to provide feedback on their experiences of the
programme and the delivery approach. Feedback
from the first cohort of online learners led to
changes to the structure and presentation of sessions
and activities, for example the inclusion of more
frequent shorter breaks during workshops, and
revisions to the approach to using icebreaker
activities. However, despite helpful feedback from
learners, facilitators indicated that they were still
unsure exactly what it was like to be a participant in
the virtual classroom sessions. At the same time they
acknowledged that it was important to be able to
appreciate and understand learners’ experiences to
facilitate the development of appropriate, engaging
and effective activities for their online sessions.
The aim of this research was try to gain a better
understanding of learners’ experiences in the TQFE
virtual classrooms. Two methods of obtaining
detailed accounts of learners’ experiences were used.
The first was an open access blog to which learners
posted comments on various aspects of their
experiences. The blog was introduced at an online
‘project launch’ event and all TQFE participants
who had completed the programme were invited to
contribute in an email. Facilitators posted blog
entries on various aspects of the programme (for
example ice breakers, the use of breakout rooms,
discussions), raising questions to prompt learners to
reflect on and share their experiences. Eight ‘starter
postings’ were made by tutors between February and
May 2011 and 21 comments were received from 6
learners.
Blog postings were reviewed by the researchers
to identify questions and issues for further
discussion in a semi-structured group interview. All
blog contributors were invited to the interview, and
three attended. A brief summary of the blog postings
was presented to open the discussion, but
participants were allowed to take the conversation in
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
374
any direction they wished and raise additional
topics. The interview provided rich detail of the
participants’ experiences and indicates areas of
common and diverse experiences.
The blog postings and interview transcript were
analysed iteratively by the two researchers to
identify emerging themes and illustrative quotations.
Themes were sorted and classified to provide the
recommendations and sub-recommendations, each
supported by appropriate quotations from learners.
4 FINDINGS
The recommendations cover areas of practice which
are commonly included in other best practice
guidelines, such as preparing learners and using
breakout rooms effectively (see table 1 – for a full
version including sub-recommendations please visit
www.slideshare.com/sarahcornelius). The learner
perspective on these issues adds weight to existing
recommendations and provides additional evidence
of what works and why from the participants’ points
of view. Other recommendations cover areas that
were raised by learners, such as the impact of
minimalists and concerns over privacy, and are
issues not generally covered in other guidelines for
good practice. This section will focus on three
specific areas of the recommendations – breakout
rooms, minimalists and privacy - to illustrate how
the learners’ voice has been used to inform their
development and to add depth and richness to the
recommendations.
Table 1: The nine areas of recommendations for
facilitating learning using web conferencing based on
learners’ experiences.
1. Prepare learners for learning in the virtual classroom
2. Establish etiquette and adopt a set of protocols to facilitate
communication
3. Use icebreakers to welcome and familiarise learners with
tools
4. Use breakout rooms for small group activities
5. Provide a variety of activities to meet different learning
preferences
6. Foster student-tutor and student-student relationships
throughout a course
7. Identify and manage those who participate minimally
8. Use the media to suit the situation – video, audio and chat
can be used separately or in combination
9. Reassure, encourage, keep things simple
4.1 Using Breakout Rooms
Breakout rooms can be an enormously helpful way
of varying an online session and are considered by
Chatterton (2010) to offer “immense versatility” (p.
13), for example allowing small groups to undertake
tasks and bring outputs back to a plenary full group
discussion. The use of breakout rooms was generally
very well received by the TQFE respondents. One
blogger suggested that “breakout rooms worked well
and were easy to move in and out of”. Another
noted that “the breakout rooms are an excellent
tool…when we log on initially, we get a small idea
of what is to come by seeing the breakout rooms and
what they are called – builds the anticipation”. An
interviewee added, ”I do look at the breakout rooms
and see what they are named and what they are, and
if it’s something like ‘red’ ‘blue’ and ‘gold’, I
wonder what that is.” Thus, if a facilitator allocates
interesting breakout room names relevant to group
tasks, some learners will notice and may be
motivated to engage as a result.
Learners were of the opinion that an optimum
number for activities in breakout rooms is 3 or 4.
The facilitator normally decided how to allocate
learners to breakout rooms, for example on the basis
of interest, skills, or order in the participant list, or
may do this randomly. One blogger said, “I don’t
mind how we divide up to go into a room – whether
we are asked to go to a particular room specifically
or it is chosen randomly. Saying that, I hope you
never use the ‘team captains taking turns to choose
who they want in a group’ as happened in school as
that would dredge up memories of gym class!” One
strategy that was not used by facilitators was
allowing the software to randomly allocate and
move participants to breakout rooms. One
interviewee commented that “it gives participants
autonomy [to move themselves into breakout rooms]
as well, to know that you can do that yourself,
instead of someone taking you”, a comment which
supports the rejection of the automatic allocation
approach and suggests that giving learners control
over their movement around the environment is
more appropriate. One blogger found it easy to get
into breakout rooms, but challenging if all the
participants in a session tried to move around at
once: “I do find that when everyone jumps into a
room, my name on the list moves too rapidly for me
to quickly drag so I sometimes wait until the rush is
over and then drag my name into the room”. Care
also needs to be taken to ensure that allocation to
breakout rooms does not leave anyone on their own -
one blogger talked about feeling “lonely” when no-
one else joined her in a room.
One of the tutors raised this issue of visiting
breakout rooms where learners were working on
group tasks: “I just wondered how you felt about the
FACILITATINGLEARNINGWITHWEBCONFERENCING-RecommendationsbasedonLearners'Experiences
375
way we were facilitating when you were in breakout
rooms. Certainly with my groups, sometimes I would
pop in and sometimes I wouldn’t … I was never sure
if anyone had noticed me or not”. This tutor clearly
had concerns about whether or not to visit the
rooms, whether learners’ privacy should be
respected and discussions allowed to continue
unobserved and uninterrupted. Interviewees seemed
to have been generally unaware of the tutor’s
presence when they did ‘drop in’ to breakout rooms
– “I didn’t notice unless someone said something”.
Others did notice, but saw it as a neutral activity, “I
found I was aware of tutors entering but didn’t feel
the need to interrupt the flow of discussion to
acknowledge their presence”, or, “I do tend to notice
when the tutor pops in and don’t mind at all”. Some
learners may see the availability of tutors in
breakout rooms as an opportunity to clarify issues or
ask supplementary questions. Bloggers said,
“sometimes it can be easier to ask a question when
in a breakout room”, and “it gives an opportunity to
ask questions when the tutor ‘pops in’ if anyone is
nervous about that kind of thing”. Learners may
therefore value strategies which allow them to invite
facilitators into their discussion space - “we did on
occasions request the tutor to come in” – whilst
being ambivalent about the issue of unannounced
visits.
All in all, breakout rooms provide a safe and
confidential space for small groups to work together
and discuss ideas. A blogger put it, “they are great
when used to collaborate and then return with
feedback for the group”.
Shepherd, Green and Sampson (2011) make the
suggestion that facilitators should “drop in regularly
to each room to provide guidance” and notes that
when directed to breakout rooms participants “often
wait for the facilitator to show up or reissue
instructions or manage the tools for them” (p. 45).
This may be the case for one-off webinars where
participants are new to each other, but where a
sustained programme of study is supported using
web conferencing, the development of independence
in learners may be an important aim to prevent such
over-reliance on facilitator guidance.
Learners noted the value of the timer tool during
breakout room activities. Bloggers said, “timers
were a very good tool for ensuring we kept to time”,
and, “with the timer on you could still see when you
were expected to be back in the main room”.
Allowing learners to manage their time through use
of the timer, along with providing the opportunity
for them to move themselves around breakout
rooms, may provide learners with a sense of
responsibility and autonomy and in turn a sense of
control and comfort in the virtual classroom
environment.
4.2 The Impact of Minimalist Learners
Inevitably in any group of learners there will be
some whose participation is minimal. A variety of
behaviours may be exhibited by these minimalists,
including non-attendance or lack of contribution and
engagement when present. Online, this can cause
difficulties for the group as a whole. One
interviewee labelled such non-participation
“annoying”, while another explained, “In our group
there were some people, like me, who were quite
happy to talk all the time, but there were others who
weren’t and that was very, very obvious, they didn’t
seem to want to participate”. One interviewee
pointed out that in a face-to-face situation, there is
more opportunity for the tutor to see what is
happening, and to intervene. Online this is not so
easy. Identification of minimalists may be difficult,
and sensitivity is required to handle the issue when
there may be difficulties understanding the reasons
for the behaviour and a lack of opportunity for
informal conversation to address the situation.
In collaborative work online, it can become even
more problematic when a group member fails to
participate or is less committed than others.
Interviewees spoke of the “stress” created by this
situation, which they were perhaps reluctant to share
with the tutor – “It creates a level of stress that
possibly you guys [tutors] aren’t aware of”. One
interviewee regarded coping with a minimalist peer
in their group as being the most stressful part of the
whole programme. Suggestions for facilitators are
difficult to make, although careful design of
activities and close monitoring of breakout group
activity may help to identify minimalists and
discourage disengagement.
A related issue concerns the use of supporting
technologies alongside web conferencing. For
example a tutor may provide support between live
online sessions using tools such as blogs or
discussion groups. Again, these may be used well by
some learners, but not at all by others. It may be that
such aids do not in fact aid learning for some people.
However, in a group situation, it will be noticed that
some learners fail to participate, and this engenders
negative feelings in others – “I was quite
disappointed with the amount of people who did
actually input to the blog”. One interviewee felt
that it was too easy to opt out, another was more
willing to make allowances, saying that time
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
376
pressure of other aspects of work was a factor, while
yet another interviewee spoke of initial enthusiasm
in using the blog provided, and then becoming
discouraged by the lack of peer response – “I have to
confess then I fell away from it because I wasn’t
getting responses”. This demotivation can be
detrimental to the group as a whole, and to the
success of the online course, and should also be
closely monitored by the tutor.
Little discussion of minimalists is found in any
existing best practice guidelines, although
Chatterton (2010) notes that challenges can also be
created by participants who dominate or side-track
discussions towards topics of their personal interest.
He suggests that sending appropriate private text
messages may be a useful strategy to address the
situation, and this might also be a useful strategy for
addressing minimalists.
4.3 Respecting Diversity
Tutors readily acknowledge the diversity of learners
in a TQFE group and one commented on the
difficulty in accommodating differences – “It’s
interesting … the diversity of thinking styles in any
group... you’ve got divergent thinkers and
convergent thinkers... we’ve got people who are
happy to discuss and to look at ideas and to spend
time talking about ideas in a more divergent way.
And other people that want to be focused, to know
what they’ve got to do to pass [the course] and they
find it infuriating if it’s too waffly and too
discursive. So trying to accommodate these different
types of thinking styles is difficult.” One
interviewee, clearly a divergent and creative thinker,
responded by saying that “I…like to go off at a
tangent. To me it’s not waffling, but that’s just the
way my mind works. It is sort of creative like that”.
A blogger expressed a preference to be well
prepared for activities: “I would have preferred to
review [any external resources] before coming to
class. I felt at times there was not enough time to
digest them or reflect on the questions posed before
being asked to respond (and being first
alphabetically, I was more often than not the first
one asked). My answers would have been a bit more
coherent and structured if I had more time”.
Expressing an alternative view, another blogger
wrote, “I like the surprise of using external
resources during the session... sometimes an
unprepared response to an activity can be more
interesting (and nerve wracking at first). If I was
asked to review something before hand and it was
repeated in the session (e.g. a YouTube clip), I could
see myself losing interest as I would already have
seen it and I dislike repeating an activity.” For the
facilitator it is clear that a range of strategies, and
variety in activity design are important in a group
with such diversity of learning preferences.
Shepherd, Green and Sampson (2011) similarly
suggest building in as much variety as possible to an
online course to address learner preferences.
The quotation above also indicates the need for
facilitators to be sensitive to individual’s feelings –
the blogger talked about a situation that she found
“nerve wracking”. At least two bloggers wrote about
their dislike for being “put on the spot” by questions
from the facilitator, in one case saying that “my mind
goes blank!”, while the other experienced
embarrassment and momentary lack of articulation –
“I must have sounded like the King’s Speech”,
referring to the 2010 film of the same name. Whilst
it is acknowledged that interaction needs to be
encouraged on a regular basis in a virtual classroom,
it is clear that facilitators need to adopt strategies
that do not embarrass participants or cause them
discomfort. In addition facilitators need to be aware
that what they might regard as an innocuous
question, perhaps as part of an icebreaking activity,
may impose on the privacy of a learner in an
unintended way. One blogger explained, “I didn’t
like giving out personal information in a public
forum e.g. what I did in my holidays”, and as a
result, “I felt under pressure to join in and if
anything [this] turned me off in terms of
participation”. Shepherd, Green and Sampson
(2011) also note the need to be sensitive to cultural
differences. Due regard for learners’ privacy and
comfort is therefore important to maintain
motivation and participation.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This research is based on the experiences of a small
number of learners, albeit a group with considerable
experience as learners in a virtual classroom.
Findings may not be able to be generalised to all
contexts and, in addition, it is acknowledged that the
perspectives of all learners from the TQFE
programme are not represented here. Most
significantly, the experiences of the minimalists are
not considered, and there could therefore be
explanations for their behaviour and patterns of
interaction that have not been considered. However,
the learners’ experiences presented do, in some
cases, add weight to other recommendations for
good practice with web conferencing made by other
FACILITATINGLEARNINGWITHWEBCONFERENCING-RecommendationsbasedonLearners'Experiences
377
authors. In other cases, they provide an alternative
perspective and additional insight for facilitators.
Although an attempt has been made to
summarise the data obtained into a set of guidelines
for facilitators, it may not be possible to produce a
‘one size fits all’ set of recommendations for
facilitators, and there may be differences between
what constitutes good practice in one situation (e.g.
the one-off webinar with drop-in participants) and
others (such as the longer term use of regular online
sessions with a fixed group of learners). However, in
all cases elements which might be regarded as good
educational practice in any environment will persist
and are suggested by the findings. These include the
need to facilitate with sensitivity to learners’ needs,
preferences, feelings and privacy, and with the aim
of developing learner autonomy and independence,
both with the technology that provides the learning
environment, and as learners in a more general
sense.
Additional research into learners’ and
facilitators’ experiences with web conferencing is
needed to help develop best practice further in this
area. Our research into both facilitators’ and
learners’ experiences continues and we hope to
contribute further to the development of good
practice in teaching and learning in virtual
classrooms.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to the learners who engaged with the
research and to our colleagues and fellow tutors on
the online TQFE programme who have provided
feedback and support. The project was supported by
a small grant award from ELESIG (ning.elesig.com).
REFERENCES
Chatterton, P., (2010). Designing for Partcipant
Engagement with Elluminate Live. Retrieved October
29, 2010 from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elluminate
guidance
Cornelius, S., (2011). Experiences of teaching in real-time
online virtual classrooms. Unpublished MRes
dissertation. University of Aberdeen.
de Freitas, S. and Neumann, T., (2009). The use of
exploratory learning’ for supporting immersive
learning in virtual environments. Computers &
Education, 52(2) 343-352.
Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. and Barbour,
M., (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online
teaching: perspectives of Canadian high school
distance education teachers. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 42, 583-591.
Ng, K. C., (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by
synchronous online technologies: challenges and
pedagogical implications. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1), 1-15.
Sampson, B., Shepherd, C., (2010). How to run a virtual
classroom session. ALT Webinar recording. Retrieved
November 20, 2011 from: http://repository.alt.ac.uk/
view/divisions/classroom/
Shepherd, C., Green, P. and Sampson, B., (2011). Live
online learning: a facilitator’s guide. Onlignment Ltd.
Retrieved November 20, 2011 from
http://onlignment.com/live-online-learning-a-facilitato
rs-guide/
Wang, S.-K. and Hsu, H.-Y., (2008). Use of the webinar
tool (Elluminate) to support training: the effects of
webinar-learning implementation from student-
trainers’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 7(3), 175-194.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
378
