Practical Strategies for Educational Applications of Adobe Connect
•
1 j'aime•331 vues
This presentation provides practical insights about using webinars for educational purposes. It also highlights research on the educational impact of this type of learning with forestry educators and other professionals as well aswoodland owners.
![Acknowledgements ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (19)
Similaire à Practical Strategies for Educational Applications of Adobe Connect
Similaire à Practical Strategies for Educational Applications of Adobe Connect (20)
Plus de Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Human Dimensions Research Unit
Plus de Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Human Dimensions Research Unit (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Practical Strategies for Educational Applications of Adobe Connect
- 1. Practical Strategies for Educational Applications of Adobe Connect Peter Smallidge and Shorna Broussard Allred www.ForestConnect.info www.SustainableWoodlands.info Department of Natural Resources College of Agriculture and Natural Resources The Northeastern Forest Research and Technology Transfer Conference, April 21-23, 2009, Groton, CT
- 4. Subject Matter Specialist Woodlot Owner Forester CCE Educator “ Stakeholders” CCE Adobe Connect Web Conference Technology (server)
- 14. Respondent Demographics 14% 86% NY Woodland Owners 20% 80% Woodland Owner Participants 25% Female 75% Male All Webinar Participants Gender
- 15. Respondent Demographics 44% Graduate or Professional Degree 39% Bachelor’s Degree 7% Associates Degree 1% Vocational or technical school 9% Some College 1% High School or GED All Participants Educational Attainment
- 17. Program Participation - Frequency
- 18. 12 Computer limitations 16 The topics have not interested me 65 Inconvenient timing 2 Like the topics, but not the technology 5 I don’t know how to unsubscribe Yes % What limits your participation in live events?
- 19. Factors Related to the Efficacy of the Educational Experience
- 22. If you participated with a group, did that enhance your experience?
- 23. Types of Interaction 38 Did not interact 7 Posted a link or other potentially useful information in the chat pod 35 Posted a comment about the webinar topic in the chat pod 45 Asked a question of the speaker by typing into the chat pod Yes (%) Types of interaction during a webinar?
- 24. If you did interact, did that interaction enhance your learning experience? (check data)
- 25. If did not interact, why? 15 Did not understand how to interact 26 Did not feel comfortable 71 Questions was already asked 92 Preferred to listen Yes (%)
- 26. Level of Attentiveness 20 Got up and left my computer for part of the webinar 33 Looked up information on the web related to the webinar topic 31 Answered my telephone 60 Consumed food 7 Surfed the internet 8 Sent or received instant messages 24 Checked e-mail Yes (%) While viewing the webinar, I often have:
- 27. Evaluation of ForestConnect Webinars
- 28. Content and Delivery (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 4.19 Webinars effectively raise my awareness or consciousness about topics and related issues. 4.21 Webinars effectively increase my knowledge and understanding of topics and related issues. 4.18 The pace of the presentation was good. 4.14 The content was effectively organized. 4.13 The content was presented in an interesting manner. Mean Metrics of satisfaction
- 29. Logistics & Interaction (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 3.86 I benefited from the interaction of other participants with the presenters 3.86 I have recommended a ForestConnect webinar to someone else. 3.84 The amount of time given to the webinar was adequate. 3.97 I was satisfied with my level of interaction with the presenters. Mean Metrics of satisfaction
- 30. Impact
- 33. Attitudes toward Distance Learning
- 34. (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 4.35 Access to current information 4.35 Easier to fit into schedule than in-person seminars 4.43 Access to the recorded webinar if you missed original presentation 4.59 Does not involve travelling 4.20 Post-webinar access to website for additional information Mean ADVANTAGES of WEBINARS
- 35. (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 3.52 Internet learning is more efficient use of time than in-person training 3.60 More comfortable to learn at home or office via the internet than in-person events 3.60 Provides easy and inexpensive access to Continuing Education Credits 3.95 Ability to interact with people from different regions 2.00 Internet learning will make in-person educational events unnecessary 3.90 Ability to interact with the instructor on-line Mean ADVANTAGES of WEBINARS
- 36. Use of On-Line Resources
- 48. Peter Smallidge Sr. Extension Associate [email_address] 607 / 592 3640 Shorna Broussard Allred Associate Professor Human Dimensions of Natural Resources [email_address] 607 / 255 - 2149
- 49. (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 4.35 The information was presented at an understandable level. 4.19 I am likely to apply what I learned as a result of this training. 4.35 The content was easy to understand. 4.30 I found the training to be valuable. 4.35 I was satisfied with the quality of the presentation. 4.32 The content was relevant 4.43 The webinar was an effective method of learning about the topic. 4.40 I was comfortable learning using the webinar format. 4.25 The webinar made learning easy. Mean
- 50. (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 2.97 Webinars are a more effective way to learn concepts than in-person educational events 2.34 Webinars are a more effective way to learn skills than in-person educational events 3.02 Webinars provide a learning experiences as effective as a face-to-face class 3.25 Webinars do not provide as much opportunity for depth of learning as is available through in-person events 4.25 I would recommend this form of distance learning for future seminars 4.21 I am comfortable using the webinar format 4.35 I would recommend this form of instruction to others 4.44 I would attend another web-based seminar 3.61 I am familiar with educational programs hosted by my local office of Cooperative Extension Mean ATTITUDES TOWARD WEBINARS
- 51. 17.3 (79) 82.7 (378) Attending educational workshop 19.6 (89) 80.4 (364) Talking with other forest owners 8.8 (40) 91.2 (417) Conversations with natural resource professionals 51.1 (230) 48.9 (220) Attending professional society meetings 2.6 (12) 97.4 (445) Reading information from the Internet 15.5 (71) 84.5 (386) Subscribing to magazines or journals 28.2 (128) 71.8 (326) Trying different activities in the woods and monitoring the outcome 7.9 (36) 92.1 (422) Reading books 45.7 (205) 54.3 (244) Participation in a forest owner association local events 28.4 (129) 71.6 (325) Visit to the property of other owners as a woodswalk No % (n) Yes % (n) In addition to webinars, I educate myself about natural resources through:
- 52. (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 2.96 I would like more interaction with other participants. 2.95 I like the webinars because of the continuing education credits. 2.94 I would like to participate in more than one forestry-related webinar per month. 3.13 I use the recordings of a webinar I saw live to remind me of important or interesting concepts. 1.89 The content of the webinar was above my level of understanding. 3.44 The session addressed all of my questions relative to the subject matter. 2.91 I would like to view the webinar at a local site if a group activity about the topic was coordinated by a facilitator. 2.94 Being able to see the presenter would have added value to the webinar. Mean
- 56. (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) 2.35 I am distracted when I try to observe the webinar 2.73 Lack of personal contact with the webinar speaker 2.67 Internet access or other technical problems 2.54 I am not likely to ask a questions on-line via the chat pod 2.84 Lack of personal contact with other participants 2.93 Web-based medium restricts in-depth communication 2.42 The webinar format doesn’t allow for adequate asking or responses to questions 2.57 Lack of time to view the webinar Mean DISADVANTAGES of WEBINARS
- 58. How did you hear about the ForestConnect webinars? 62.6 Other Listserve from natural resources group 67.4 Word of mouth, e-mail from a friend, or other direct contact 5.6 Newspaper 38.4 Newsletter or magazine 49.0 Forest Connect Listserv 57.1 Forest Connect website Yes (%)
- 59. Respondent Demographics 22% 48% 27% 3% 0% Woodland Owner Participants 16% 65+ 43% 51 – 65 yrs 28% 36 – 50 yrs 13% 20 – 35 yrs 0% < 19 yrs All Participants Age
- 60. Respondent Demographics 58% Rural 28.4% Suburban 13.2% Urban All Webinar Participants Gender
Notes de l'éditeur
- This seems overly simplistic for the audience in CT, but maybe not. I developed this figure to illustrate via schematic the interaction between users and presenters/hosts. The software provides an interface that is similar to an in-person workshop where there is a physical space to initially gather and chat (I use a lobby layout available in Adobe Connect) and then the group moves to a meeting room (the Share layout in adobe connect) for the ppt and questions. The FC webinars are interactive with questions provided by chat pod and answers provided verbally. All presentations are recorded. The chat pod allows for questions to accumulate and the speaker to scroll back. Early on participants requested that only the speaker have audio (100% in polling). I don’t sense that typing has limited interaction, but perhaps our 2009 evaluation will show otherwise.
- It would be interesting to know the percentage of all owners in these age brackets. But this sample is more than owners and includes foresters, agency, educators, etc. Eventually it would be interesting to look at all the data segmented to see the effects on just owners and make comparison to the NWOS. Brett says that Internet isn’t a good way to reach the older owner audience. From the NWOS (B. Butler) 572 (x1000) owners < 25 yrs = 0 25 – 34 = 0 35 – 44 = 60 45 – 54 = 120 55 – 64 =154 65 – 74 = 129 > 75 = 109
- I assume this reflects a comfort with computers for people who have college experiences.
- Wow, so 20% of those registered just like to receive monthly email from me. It is curious why they don’t unsubscribe from the list. Could it be that the 20.3% saying “no” are in part those who have only watched a recorded version? I’m surprised at the high level of people who have viewed both live and recorded. I didn’t think that many people used the recordings. It’s good that Paul fixed the server.
- So, 45% have watched 4 or more webinars. Assuming a fair percentage have seen 2 or 3, I’d say we have a pretty good return rate.
- It is hard to imagine that with two offerings (noon and 7 PM) that they can’t make one of those times. But, most people are over programmed and it might be that finding a time for the 1 or 2 topics of intererst didn’t allow a match. The webinars were intended to make it easier to learn by eliminating travel time and providing “anytime access” of the recorded versions. Our 2007 study found that time was the biggest barrier to people doing things in their woods.
- Looks like we need to try harder to provide supplemental reading. This is worth relating to the group who might also be planning on using webinars. Also noteworthy for what we need to do for the SFP grant.
- Yes is a relatively small number, but suggestive of a potential learning model that we could develop more fully. In the old days (mid 1990’s) CCE used satellite video conferencing. We did a couple forestry sessions and would always try to provide educational resources to downlink sites for “wrap around” sessions with the on-site group. Then, all viewing was via a group at a CCE office. The group viewing option provides a way to bring in people who don’t know about CCE (see a later question) and those people who still have dial up.
- Looks like we should encourage group activity. Something we can push through the extension system. See comments on previous slide. I will be sure to share this concept with the FRESH group in early May.
- In an in-person presentation I might field questions from 20% of the audience. In bigger live groups the percentage is even smaller. These numbers suggest to me a higher level of interaction than is experience with in-person presentations. When you deliver this ppt and before your show this slide, you might ask what percent of their in-person audience asks questions…a good benchmark for us to interpret these numbers. I also usually prompt the audience to ask questions at some point to get them moving. That usually starts a flood of questions.
- The message here is that we need to encourage ways to interact. The NCSU group (Robert Bardon) force interaction through regular prompting of “raise hands” or “check yes”. However, they have a very low amount of questions when given the opportunity, at least as compared to mine and what I saw of your webinars.
- I think the “did not feel comfortable” is low compared to the same response for in-person presentations. I also find it hard to believe the 14% who did not understand how to interact. If you are paying attention you see how others ask questions and there is opportunity to ask questions.
- I’m impressed that 1/3 of participants looked up information on the web related to the the webinar topic. Thus, webinars provide a mechanism to stimulate expanding simultaneous learning that isn’t possible with an in-person presentation. This is a worthwhile conclusion. How many times have I sat in a presentation and written down a website and never looked it up.
- The one item here is the reduced satisfaction they had with the presenter. I wonder what the nature of interaction they didn’t have. Do they want to see the presenter, talk in person, have the opportunity for multiple sequential questions at a conversation level…hard to know.
- The one item here is the reduced satisfaction they had with the presenter. I wonder what the nature of interaction they didn’t have. Do they want to see the presenter, talk in person, have the opportunity for multiple sequential questions at a conversation level…hard to know.
- Good impact. How do these compare to in-person presentations?
- Lower than I had hoped, but not a bad number.
- Looks like the advantages are truly advantages.
- Looks like the advantages are truly advantages.
- So the people at webinars like to learn by video. 40% of users don’t use on-line resources….we’re their primary connection. This sounds like we’re providing them a good exposure to the Internet.
- The objectives of the FC webinars were to provide simple access to a group of people we perhaps weren’t serving because of their time or geographic constraints. The first FC webinar (then called webcasts) was in May 2007. The target audience was and has continued to be woodland owners, foresters, and rural practitioners. To get the initiative started I offered ppt based on existing presentations. Same content but a new audience. During the first year, I surveyed the registered users to determine the topics of interest and the timing of the presentations. The noon hour session seems to attract a balance of owners, private consultants, and agency/NGO foresters. The evening session is more heavy to owners, but with some foresters. The noon session almost always fills and about 50-60% of noon level shows up in the evening.
- The users and respondents like webinars… we don’t know about the non-users and non-respondents.
- Cooperative Extension needs to do more marketing of programs and webinars won’t replace personal education. No surprises, but good data. I’m a bit surprised at the relatively high score of the last two. What percentage of people agreed with these comments?
- So 17.3% of people don’t attend workshops. I infer two things. Webinar users are comfortable with the Internet and thus we need to use that vehicle to provide educational materials and especially to give them web links. Second, they put significant stock in interpersonal interactions, so building the communities of interest has particular merit. But how to create multiple “virtual woodland tours” (item #1) ?
- I’ll guess that the 3.13 (#2) is a reflection of the 49% who watched both live and recorded. Half said agree and half said disagree…equals about 3.13. The #3 doesn’t mesh with the potential to expand the role of group interaction associated with webinars. Or, we’ll need to bring in more extroverts rather than the current group.
- Looks like the disadvantages we proposed weren’t really disadvantages. Good question to have included!!
- Do I understand this correctly…73 woodland owners and 54 managers, less than 50% of participants? Who is attending?