Georgia Tech Policy Project on Industrial Modernization
HOME | THE PROJECT | PUBLICATIONS | SEARCH | CONTACT US | WHATS NEW

Philip Shapira, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA; and Visiting Researcher, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, D-76139 Karlsruhe, Germany. Email: ps25@prism.gatech.edu; and Jan Youtie, Senior Researcher, Georgia Tech Economic Development Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332-0640, USA. Email: jan.youtie@edi.gatech.edu. October 1998.

Abstract. This article discusses experience in teaching an online seminar course on industrial modernization that combined conventional and distance learning methods with Internet-based communications and multi-media technologies. Three versions of the seminar course were offered, in synchronous and asynchronous modes, with each round using different combinations of teaching methods and technologies. The article discusses the seminar’s objectives, modes of teaching, technical design, operation, and student evaluations. The strengths, weaknesses, and requirements of Internet-based teaching are considered, and practical guidelines and insights are offered to faculty interested in developing such courses.

Acknowledgements. The online seminar courses described in this article received the support of several units at Georgia Institute of Technology, including the Office of Distance Learning, Continuing Education and Outreach, the Ivan Allen College, and the Economic Development Institute. The authors particularly wish to acknowledge the assistance of Robert Albright, Joe Boland, Matt Corey, Joseph S. DiGregorio, Ami Feinstein, Walter Gonzales, Ron Hutchins, Ken Knoesppel, Chris Lindsey, Mike Luttrell, Alfie Meek, Paul Manno, and Loping Wei. Grateful acknowledgements are also due to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and to the Georgia Tech Foundation for awards that helped to sponsor the first online seminar, and to the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research for providing facilities to conduct the third online seminar.

INTRODUCTION

The opportunities and challenges associated with using the Internet in teaching and learning have come to the forefront of debate with the increased awareness and use of this technology in recent years. The Internet has its origins in decentralized networks of inter-connected computers linked together through data-transfer protocols to support military communications and advanced research. In the1990s, this system was transformed into a global and publicly accessible network of government, education, and business computers. More than 100 million people, two-thirds of whom live in the United States, are now connected to the Internet.¹

Most educators and students at American universities and colleges are, by now, familiar in some way with the Internet. Indeed, leading U.S. universities pioneered the development of the Internet’s predecessors, and are today in the forefront of building the "next generation" of Internet systems. Electronic mail (e-mail) has become ubiquitous for research and faculty-student communication. The electronic transfer and sharing of files and documents is common. Most recently, the World Wide Web (or the "web") has emerged as a significant information resource and research tool. Web use has been stimulated by the availability of powerful, low-cost computers, cheaper and faster Internet access, and easier-to-use web browsers and authoring software. Many faculty now use the Internet to make course outlines, reading materials, and resource links available to their students through course home pages placed on the web.²

Yet, the Internet can be used not only to send text-based messages, share files, or display web pages, but also to transmit audio and video content and to conduct electronic conferences. Sound and moving images are sampled and compressed by software algorithms and then transmitted via Internet digital data streams. End-users can thus hear and view Internet broadcasts in "real time" and on-demand, without waiting for large files to download. At present, Internet-based broadcasting and conferencing technologies are still in their infancy.³ The quality and fidelity is poorer than for conventional television, satellite, or cable links, while "net" congestion resulting from high Internet usage demand can hamper reliable reception. However, significant improvements in the performance, speed, and features of Internet broadcasting are anticipated in the near future.

The further refinement of Internet-based broadcasting poses intriguing possibilities for educators. There has been an expanding demand for education and training in the United States. The part-time student population has doubled in the last two decades, full time students increased by nearly two-fifths over the same period, and 40 percent of U.S. adults are reported to participate in education or training annually (Speer 1996). For university administrators, Internet-based technologies promise cost-effective methods not only to meet this demand, but also to reach additional students (including students outside the United States). A further factor is the growing presence (if not competition) of online courses offered by private vendors and "virtual" colleges.⁴ Many universities are already implementing programs to add Internet-based technologies to existing distance learning programs offered through videotape, CD-ROM, cable television, and microwave and satellite transmission. Internet-based learning technologies are also being promoted for campus-based students, for instance by using the Internet to broadcast and retrieve multi-media course content. These trends are coupled, at an expanding set of institutions, with matriculation requirements for students to posses multi-media computers, and by new investments in campus computer networks and access points in classrooms and residences.

However, while the rapid development and dissemination of Internet technology generates new possibilities for universities, it is also apparent that a series of critical pedagogic, usability, and resource issues are raised. For example, can Internet links effectively involve students in remote locations, off-site from the traditional classroom? What are the equipment, software, skill, time, and financial requirements? What additional technical support will "regular" (i.e. non-computer specialist) faculty members need to employ these new technologies? How will traditional classroom teaching change as new networked learning environments are developed which are less constrained by physical space and institutional boundaries? Will institutions, faculty, and students who do not – or cannot – embrace these new technologies be sidelined? And, most fundamentally, is student motivation, learning, and understanding actually improved by using new Internet technology?

Contrasting views about the kinds of questions raised above are already apparent. In many ways, they are not entirely new questions. Over the last twenty years, other technologies applied to education, such as televised lectures or video teaching with remote students, have stimulated similar debates. However, the rapid and pervasive spread of the Internet is likely to generate a further, hotly contested round of controversy. Advocates of greater Internet use in teaching suggest that it can improve the support of group-based learning, as well as self-paced learning (Chute, Sayers, and Gardner 1998). The Internet can speed communication and information flows, and make courses more engaging by adding sound and video content (Ellis 1997). It also offers the potential for "classrooms without walls" or "virtual classrooms" that can allow the development of geographically dispersed learning communities (Neal 1997). Indeed, major universities plan to reach thousands of degree students through off-campus, distance teaching over the next decade. One university’s vision is that future students will be able to "take courses and earn degrees free from time and space constraints" (Center for Distance Learning, 1998).

On the other hand, online education raises major issues. Garson (1996, 1997) worries that the additional faculty time needed to develop online courses may reduce student mentoring. He also highlights the difficulty of meeting user expectations, negative impacts on academic quality and traditional university scholarship, and potential equity issues. Some students have voiced concerns about the technological transformation of university education, the severing of links between students and teachers, and the negative effects on student inquiry. "We don’t want edutainment," commented one student at a recent conference on ‘Digital Diploma Mills’. "What we want is people to inspire and infuriate us" (Winner 1998).

Despite much popular discussion, few faculty members at conventional universities have so far attempted to use the broadcast and multi-media capabilities of the Internet in their courses. Perhaps even fewer faculty have offered an Internet-based multi-media course in the fields of public policy and planning education. In these fields, there are rarely "correct" answers; major issues usually require the consideration of multiple perspectives, implementation issues are complex, and interaction and dialogue is crucial. Technological approaches that simply impart information, transfer "solutions," or allow only one-way conversational flows are unlikely to foster the learning situations that policy and planning educators and students seek.

In this article, we discuss our experience in teaching an online seminar course in the policy and planning field of industrial modernization. The course combined conventional and distance learning methods with Internet-based communications and multi-media technologies. Three versions of the seminar course have been offered, with each round using different combinations of teaching methods and technologies (Table 1). In-class and distant students have taken the seminar, which has also involved remote experts and the use of distance teaching as well as learning. The course has been taught in a synchronous ("live") mode, as well as in asynchronous modes that use "replayable" recorded content modules.

The online course described in this article was among the first to use these capabilities at a leading technological university. Our budget was limited. But with good institutional support and a pragmatic approach to technology, we have been able to use Internet-based technologies to offer an interactive environment that has motivated student learning. At the same time, our particular experience illustrates that using the Internet for "real" teaching has drawbacks as well as benefits, including technical glitches and significantly increased time commitments from students and faculty.

In following sections of the article, we discuss the objectives of the seminar on industrial modernization, its technical design and operation, methods and modes of teaching, and student evaluations. Single cases cannot be used to "resolve" the very fundamental questions that the rise of the Internet is now provoking about the interaction between technology and education. However, we hope that the insights and practical experience that we gained from offering the course will be useful to others considering the strengths and weaknesses of using Internet-based teaching technologies.

SEMINAR OBJECTIVES, CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

Driven by concerns about technological competitiveness and economic development, federal and state governments in the United States have increased their investments in public-private partnerships to promote the deployment of technology and improved business practices by industry, particularly among small and mid-sized manufacturers (Shapira 1998). Numerous manufacturing technology centers, industrial extension programs, manufacturing networks, and other initiatives to aid industry have been fostered. Many of these programs are now coordinated through the U.S. Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) – a collaborative initiative between federal and state governments that also involves non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and industry groups. The MEP includes more than 70 manufacturing technology and extension centers in all 50 states that work with over 2,000 affiliated U.S. public and private organizations to deliver industrial services to small and mid-sized firms. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the U.S. Department of Commerce is the federal sponsor (see NIST 1998). Programs affiliated with the MEP assist nearly 30,000 manufacturing firms each year through diverse services, including assistance with quality, business systems, manufacturing technologies, products and processes, training, marketing, environmental performance, and electronic commerce.

We developed our online seminar to provide students in such fields as public policy, planning, management, and engineering with an introduction to debates, issues, and concepts related to industrial modernization and its linkages with technology and innovation policy, economic competitiveness, and regional economic development. The online seminar in industrial modernization builds on our research projects and networks in this field.⁵ Through the seminar, students examine concepts of technology diffusion and explore the barriers and opportunities to the use of new technologies and operational methods in manufacturing firms. The course also considers the rationale, development, and impacts of policy intervention in the modernization field. Attention is paid to best practices of industrial modernization programs in the United States and other countries, and to the evaluation of the performance and outcomes of these programs. The seminar is organized on a ten-week (quarter system) modular basis (see Table 2).

Students who took the course for academic credit were required to complete a series of short "electronic assignments" based on course readings and seminar presentations, and to write and present a major seminar paper on a theme related to the course. Active participation in class discussions, including online discussions, was also required. For the first offering of the seminar, distant students were also registered as continuing education students. These participants did not receive academic credit but they were expected to regularly "attend" virtual seminars, read course materials, and participate in class discussions. Distant students were able to receive continuing education credit, which can be counted towards professional continuing learning requirements.

ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL OPERATION OF THE FIRST SEMINAR

The first of the three online seminars on industrial modernization offered to date was taught in the Spring Quarter of 1997. This course was taught in a "live" or synchronous mode – meaning that in-class graduate students and distant continuing education participants "met" in an overlapping time slot, with simultaneous interaction. Considerable organizational and technical challenges were presented by this approach, due to the live format and the fact that it was the first time we had attempted to use the Internet to reach distant participants. This section of the article considers the development and operation of the initial seminar.

Seminar Development and Organization

The online seminar sought to use the capabilities of the Internet to offer a course through which regular full-time students could interact with distant participants and external experts. We anticipated that this would provide an enhanced learning environment to consider both the conceptual and practical issues involved in industrial modernization. It was important that distant participants could take the course without buying special equipment or software. Additionally, we wanted distance participants to be able to take the course from their office or home using the Internet, without having to travel to a fixed satellite broadcast downlink location that would be less convenient and incur greater costs.

The planning and design of the online seminar, both in terms of content and technical specifications, began about six months beforehand. We began with some preliminary concepts, but without prior knowledge of exactly how to run the course or what equipment and software was needed. Meetings were held with university computer and distance learning specialists. The kind of course we had in mind, using the Internet rather than satellite or cable transmission for live broadcasting, had not been run before. Nevertheless, the expertise of these specialists was transferable, and helped us to define the technical requirements for the seminar. Assistance was also received from colleagues in the university’s computer science department, who were simultaneously experimenting with Internet teaching. At that time, we decided that a multi-media streaming approach, with feedback loops for discussion, was most practical. After testing competing software products, we decided to use Real Server with Real Audio and Video – a streaming technology that allows users with a complementary software known as Real Player to receive live (or recorded) audio and video transmissions directly through the Internet, without going through the time-consuming process of first downloading media files. We chose an audio-visual approach, integrating voice and slides, rather than full video for reasons that included the limited bandwidth available to users and the extra challenges involved in producing video transmissions able to maintain the interest of distant participants.⁶ The hardware and other software that instructors and students would need was also specified (see Appendix A). We examined various classrooms on the campus that could be used for the course, finally deciding to use one of the university’s multi-media distance learning classrooms.

A small grant ($5,000) from the university’s foundation allowed us to buy a computer server for the course. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and Technology also granted funds (about $16,000, excluding university overhead), which was used for visiting seminar speakers, software, additional hardware, and staff support for web design and course administration. Revenue (about $1,000) from distance learning students was used mainly to offset the expenses of visiting speakers. No additional support was received for the principal faculty instructor (the first-named author of this article). Considerable technical, staff, and facility support was provided by other university departments, particularly the university’s distance learning center, without direct reimbursement. The university’s distance learning center also provided two additional computer servers used in the multi-media classroom for live media streaming and for chat room hosting (Figure 1).

Seminar Web Site and Student Enrollment

Prior to the start of the course, we created a World Wide Web site for the online seminar (see http://www.cherry.gatech.edu). This site contained a description of the course, the course outline, and student requirements. All readings necessary for the course, plus many additional readings and links were posted to the web site. (While most of the web site was publicly accessible, materials with copyright restrictions were posted to a password-protected area available only to registered students for their fair educational use.) The site also contained technical instructions on how participants could download required software. Demonstration media files were posted so that participants could test their configuration.

We posted information announcements about the course at the university and to faculty colleagues, industrial modernization contacts, and economic development groups around the country. Mostly our external announcements were posted through the Internet, by electronic mail, on the theory that distant students should already have an Internet connection and already use e-mail as a pre-qualifying condition for taking the course.

The first seminar course was taken by 17 in-class students and by registered distance-learning participants at 18 locations in the United States. At some remote sites, more than one student participated in the course (other non-registered students also took some of the modules). The in-class students were drawn mostly from graduate students in public policy and city planning, with additional representation from management, history, and engineering. The distance participants included technology transfer professionals, industrial extension agents, economic developers, and graduate students from other universities. All students and distance participants had access to internet-connected computers. Generally, in-class students were more experienced in computer use. More than half of the in-class students had previous experience with streaming audio software, compared with only one-fifth of distance participants. Over half of the in-class students were already using the Internet more than 10 hours a week for study or work.

While we were confident that we could offer a good seminar for the in-class students, the Internet-based distant learning element was admittedly experimental. We thus requested a largely nominal distant student enrollment fee ($49.00), which included a volume of readings and access to all course presentations, electronic materials, and to the faculty instructor. We offered a "money-back" guarantee if not satisfied, although no requests for refunds were made. The university’s distance learning office handled the enrollment of distance learning students and collected the course fee. These students were not eligible for academic credit. Regular students enrolled in the normal way, through the university registrar. We had allowed for a third possibility: that students at other campuses within the state’s university system could enroll for academic credit under existing exchange procedures. Although at least one student tried to do this, it turned out that the procedures were too complicated to implement in a timely way (this student took the course as an auditor.)

Technical Requirements

The online seminar was designed to use available computer technologies with software that participants could obtain without additional expense. Students were required to have an Internet-connected computer with a sound card and speakers (or headphones). A minimum modem dial-up speed of 28.8 kilobytes per second was recommended (many distant participants had much faster office network connections).

Participants were required to have installed five types of software. (1) A web browser, to access the course web site. (2) E-mail software able to receive attachments, to communicate with the instructor and other participants, and to receive electronic documents. (3) An electronic document reader to view and print readings posted to the course web site and in the course electronic library. The seminar used Acrobat Reader, a free download that automatically configured itself as a web browser plug-in, allowing users simply to click on course web site links to open documents. (4) RealPlayer – the streaming media player needed to listen to live seminar presentations and discussions, and to replay recorded seminar modules. This software also automatically configured as a browser plug-in, allowing participants to click on the appropriate course web link to hear seminar modules. (5) Internet chat software – to ask questions and to communicate with other participants during live seminar sessions. Unlike email, typed messages exchanged by chatting are received instantaneously by all those logged into the chat room, thus allowing rapid feedback. We used shareware Internet Relay Chat (IRC) software, which offered multi-user, keyboard chat capabilities over different operating systems.⁷ (See Appendix A for specifications on user-required software.)

The "Physical" Seminar

The "physical" seminar was held a multi-media classroom operated by the university’s department of distance learning. Facilities in this classroom included fixed and mobile radio microphones, an overhead projector, a whiteboard, large-screen television monitors, speakers, telephone access, video cameras, and an internet connected computer. Separated by a glass window was a control room, equipped with internet-connected computer servers and facilities for sound, video, telephone call-in, mixing, and monitoring (Figure 1).

Before the live seminar class, the faculty instructor prepared and posted to the seminar web site a final seminar "program". This contained an outline of discussion topics for the class, speaker presentations, papers, and biographies, links to slides and reading materials, and a time-line for each session. We aimed to avoid lengthy presentations and "dead-time" with nothing being broadcast, and to maximize the time available for participant discussion. For most classes, we also pre-arranged for in-class and distant discussants to comment immediately after each presentation (after which, open discussion was encouraged). Photographs of speakers, in-class student presenters, and the seminar room were posted to the program page on the web.

The physical meeting of the seminar was held once a week, as a three-hour class for in-class students. For the first half-hour of each class, in-class students presented and discussed short assignments based on their prior readings. This was followed by the main session of the class, lasting for about two hours, during which instructors and invited experts gave presentations, discussed case studies, and participated in discussion.

More than 25 prominent national and international guest lecturers participated in seminar sessions. Some of these guest speakers were physically in the class. Others participated from remote locations by telephone. Included among the remote guest speakers were business executives (calling in from their factory offices), congressional and federal agency staff (calling from Washington), program managers and researchers (calling from their offices around the U.S. and in Canada).

Generally, guest speakers were asked to prepare slides before the class and transmit them electronically to us. Presentation slides were numbered and transformed into linked web pages. In-class and distant participants were able to listen to presentations in real time, view slides as they were referred to by speakers, make comments, and ask questions. The student assignment and discussion section and the main presentations were broadcast in real-time over the Internet to distant learning participants. The last one-half hour of each class was reserved for in-class discussion, including discussion of assignment allocations, readings, and technical issues.

The "Virtual Seminar"

The sound feed from in-class speakers and students and telephone participants was mixed into a consistent signal, compensating for different input volumes. This signal was then encoded into digital form and transmitted by the RealServer software operating on a web server in the continuing education control room. A link from the seminar web site to this server automatically allowed distant participants to stream the audio feed through the Internet and play it via RealPlayer. In the control room, another computer was configured the way an Internet participant’s computer would be, which allowed control room staff to monitor the received RealPlayer sound quality (Figure 1).

As they listened to the sound feed, distant participants could also click on a sequence of web pages to view numbered speakers’ slides. Sometimes, speakers would skip some slides, or go backwards to earlier slides. However, using the chat room, we were able to continuously indicate to remote participants the slide number a speaker was referring too. After each class, we transferred a digital copy of the audio feed to the seminar web site and edited these files. The presentations could then be replayed on demand. It was then also possible to automatically link the audio feed and slides in the actual sequence used by a speaker, to allow a full multi-media replay.⁸

During the live seminar, questions and discussion comments to faculty, speakers, or other students could be made in three ways. First, in-class students could ask questions or comment, using radio microphones. These interventions were broadcast to all Internet participants. Second, distant students could call in to the class on a toll-free telephone number. At least one-half of the distant participants had access to a telephone separate from their Internet connection. Telephone comments could be heard in the class and were re-broadcast to other Internet participants. Third, distant students could type comments through the Internet chat room. Chat room comments could be viewed by all other distant chat room participants, and could be viewed in the classroom on large video monitors. A computer was set up in the front of the seminar room connected to the chat server. One individual managed the chat room and facilitated remote participant discussion.

Initially, the "back channel" stream of chat-room comments visibly distracted in-class speakers and students. But, this problem was minimized by re-orienting monitors out of direct lines of vision in the classroom, and by encouraging attention to etiquette by chatters. In discussion periods, the faculty instructor fielded (and prompted) questions, alternating between in-class and distant students. Questions posted on the chat room were re-read aloud, so that distant students not using the chat-room and remote speakers would be aware what was being asked.

A slight time lag was observed in audio broadcast reception – due to the buffers used to encode and decode the broadcast data streams. By fine-tuning, we managed to reduce the delay to about 3 seconds – the time it took for a remote Internet user to hear words after they were first spoken in the class. Acceptable delays for current telephone systems are less than 150 milliseconds (ms) for local calls and under 400 ms for long-distance – much higher standards than we could obtain with Real Audio. However, the voice delays did not present major problems as most conversation was in a "half-duplex" mode, with only one speaker or caller talking at one time rather than simultaneous multi-voice discussion. We advised speakers to wait a few seconds after responding to a remote question, to see if the remote caller had a follow-up comment. Telephone commentators were also asked to turn down the volume on their computer speakers when calling to avoid feedback.

Sound quality was a constant challenge in the live sessions. Overhead microphones in the multi-media classroom were too sensitive. So, we used switchable personal radio microphones for in-class faculty and speakers, to achieve acceptable quality. A hand-held radio microphone was used for in-class students. The trade-off was some loss in spontaneity, as in-class students had to signal for the mike before speaking. At the same time, student questions were generally well prepared – although, without doubt, a few students were apprehensive at first about having their comments broadcast live over the Internet. Interestingly, the clearest sound quality was often obtained from remote presenters speaking directly into telephone handsets, with the telephone audio input being fed through a sound mixer and then directly to Real Server.

For remote participants, it was apparent that sound fidelity was affected by the quality and stability of individual Internet connections, computer systems, and sound cards. There seemed to be no particular relationship between received sound quality and distance. Distant students could adjust hardware and software settings to achieve some improvements. Nonetheless, periods of poor sound quality, including lost transmissions, did affect several distant participants at least some of the time.

We further learned the value of independently videotaping in-class sessions. In early classes, Real Server crashed – which meant not only a loss of broadcast to distant participants, but also a loss of a few minutes of stored digital soundtrack until the server was re-booted. A separate video record allowed us to use the sound track on the video tape to restore a full archive copy of each session. Additionally, the video sound track was useful for in editing. The digital soundtrack that is made "on-the-fly" is already compressed and sampled, which reduces the size of files. But it is then very difficult to enhance periods of poor sound quality. In such cases, we reverted to the video to re-master new digital tracks. Finally, video taping allowed us the option of posting some of the presentations as replayable modules using Real Video.

Seminar activities continued between classes in several ways. A group electronic mailing list (listserv) was established, to which all in-class and remote participants were subscribed. Group mailings were used to discuss issues raised in the seminar, describe upcoming classes, and disseminate electronic student assignments for review and further comment. Separate email messages to distance learning participants were also used to offer technical guidance on such topics as how to better use the chat room software or improve sound quality. We also established a discussion area on the seminar web site (although, we found that the listserv was a better method of group communication). The faculty instructor maintained "real" and "electronic" office hours, meeting in-class students in-person for one-on-one discussions and using email with both in-class and distance students for dealing with individual questions and comments.

SECOND AND THIRD ROUNDS OF THE SEMINAR

After the first synchronous series of seminars, the recorded content was used as the basis for subsequent classes that were offered with "asynchronous" learning modes – where students accessed Internet-based content independently, not in a simultaneous group environment. Thus, a second seminar was offered in the Fall Quarter of 1997. This course was explicitly experimental, without any advertising, and was taken by five students. These students were required, at any point in each week, to read required materials, replay audio presentations, and view presentation slides. Each week, every student had to complete an electronic assignment based on the content of each module. These were reviewed, with comments, and returned electronically by the faculty instructor. About every two weeks, students met with the instructors in a physical seminar (usually of between 2.5 to 3 hours) to discuss the content of prior modules, raise issues and questions, discuss assignments, and present seminar papers.

In a third round, the seminar was offered in the Winter quarter of 1998, under special conditions. The faculty instructor was on a research assignment in Germany, while two students who wished to take the course were in the United States. The students were enrolled as special topics students (a procedure which allows students to pursue individual special topics with a faculty instructor). The mode of seminar operation was similar to the second round, except that no physical meeting was possible. Instead, the two students took the course modules, completed the electronic and seminar paper requirements, and maintained ongoing e-mail contact with the faculty instructor. Internet-based electronic meeting software (Microsoft NetMeeting, with two-way audio, chat, and whiteboard capabilities) was used for group discussion and paper presentations. No additional external funds were used in mounting the second and third seminars.

The experience of these two follow-up seminars was positive. As one student in the second seminar commented: "Amazingly, listening to lectures on the Internet was much more stimulating than sitting in the class." This student liked the ability to review (or skip!) particular sections, and to access modules at any time. Similarly, a student in the third seminar remarked: "It is kind of nice to have the flexibility of accessing the course through the web rather than attending class in a physical building."

Students in the second seminar reported spending about 15 hours a week on average for the class, including time on the major final seminar paper. Of this, an average of about 7 hours a week was Internet-related (viewing online presentations, reading online course materials, and doing electronic assignments). In the third seminar, the average total time per week was over 12 hours, of which ten were Internet-related. Note that this data draws from a small sample (six in all). But, these reports do suggest that students were spending considerably more time with the online seminar than in a conventional course. However, very little time, if any, was spent in the university library (the median time in the library building was zero). Such data gives little comfort to those anxious about the preservation of physical libraries in an age of easily accessible (albeit variable quality) online information.

In the second seminar, the holding of "physical" meetings every two weeks greatly reinforced learning. At these sessions, it was found that students had excellent recall of the material they had listened too and read, and that they were very keen to enter into substantive and informed discussions. The regular assignments and frequent individual student-faculty email communication reinforced learning. The third seminar had all these elements, except for the physical meetings. It was found that electronic meetings were not as good or lively. To an important extent, this was due to technical reasons – mainly the poor quality of the Internet connections available to the distant faculty instructor.

STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Throughout all three rounds of the seminar, many informal feedback comments were made (in person and by email) by participants on the content and technical organization of the seminar. In addition, formal evaluations were conducted. In-class participants in the first two rounds of the seminar were asked to complete mid-session and end-of-session evaluations, in addition to the official university teaching evaluation. The special topics students in the third seminar completed an end-of-session evaluation. During the first seminar, distant participants were encouraged to complete a brief online evaluation at the end of each session to provide immediate feedback on technical and content issues. A final evaluation was also conducted with the distant participants. Not all students and participants responded to these surveys, meaning that the results (from an already small sample) should be viewed as illustrative.

Student views of technologies used in the seminar

There were differences in how in-class and Internet students viewed the various technologies used in the class (Table 3). In-class students most highly valued two traditional approaches: classroom presentations and in-class discussion. Telephone presentations and electronic posting of assignments were also highly rated. Speakers overheads were less important to in-class students, while the chat room was poorly ranked. In contrast, the distance participants highly rated the slides and overheads in the web browser, followed by electronic readings, group mailings, and Real Audio. The distant participants’ high rating of the web slides indicates the importance of at least some visual stimulation to those who are not directly in the classroom. The chat room facility received the lowest rating. While in-class students missed few classes, none of the distant students listened to all ten sessions, although all but one student listened to half or more of the sessions (the range was from four to eight sessions). Six of the eight distant participants reported replaying at least one session. The mean number of sessions replayed was 1.6 – one participant replayed five sessions.

In the second and third asynchronous seminars, high ratings were given to web-based readings and resource materials, electronic assignments, email communication, the final seminar paper, and in-class meetings. Students in these seminars were less happy with the audio quality, the overhead slides, and – for the third seminar – live electronic conferencing. (Table 4)

Overall student assessments of strengths and weaknesses

For the first seminar, in-class students most frequently said that the best things about the course were access to expert resources/bringing speakers into the classroom, electronically accessible library of class and speaker presentation materials, and interactive discussion and question-and-answer sessions. In-class students also said their learning was enhanced by the real world knowledge of the Internet students (most of whom were practitioners in the industrial modernization field), enhanced student-instructor communication, and the electronic assignments. In their evaluations of what they liked about the course, the distant students most often mentioned the seminar content, access to expert speakers, interactive discussion and question-and-answer, the newness and innovativeness of the technique, and the convenience of taking the course from their desk. Other benefits mentioned include the ability to replay classes and the well-organized nature of the course.

Technological glitches related to sound quality topped the list of aspects of the course that hindered learning. Some in-class students without their own computers reported difficulties in accessing on-line reference materials, as university student-cluster computers restricted printing of materials to save paper. (We observe that most students prefer to print out online materials, rather than read them on-screen.) A few in-class students said the in-class period was too long, while other Internet students complained about office distractions.

Students suggested a broad range of improvements for the seminar. In-class students most often gave suggestions related to content, followed by increasing discussion and interaction, shortening the length of the seminar and allowing a break, adding more microphones, and incorporating more assignments into the course design. It should be noted that although some in-class students wanted more interaction and discussion, others wanted less. The Internet students indicated that addressing the technological glitches that hampered sound quality and better managing speaker presentations would improve the seminar. Other suggestions for improvement by Internet students included employing video, managing the diversity of background and experience among distant participants, and expanding the course content.

In the second and third seminars, students most highly valued the flexibility offered by the class and raised concerns about the need to edit the presentation modules. Second seminar students also highlighted the in-class discussions as a strength. But several students noted the workload involved in listening to class modules and preparing for class discussions.

Effects on Understanding and Comparison with Traditional Courses

Overall, in-class and campus based students were more likely to positively rate the course based on its ability to improve their understanding of the subject matter than were Internet students. In the first seminar, in-class students uniformly gave the course the highest rating (all reported the course "greatly improved" their understanding of the field). In the second and third seminars, a majority of the campus-based students "strongly agreed" that the seminar improved their understanding of industrial modernization. In contrast, only two distance students in the first seminar said the course greatly improved their understanding of the subject matter; four students said their understanding was moderately improved; and two students said their understanding was slightly improved. The more diverse nature of the distance participants in the seminar, their more varied expectations, and their prior professional experience contributed to the more mixed reception these participants gave the course.

In-class students were asked to compare the seminar course with classes that use traditional teaching techniques. For the 13 students in the first seminar responding to this evaluation question, six rated the course "much better"; two rated the course "slightly better"; three rated the course "about the same"; and two rated the course "slightly worse". For the second seminar, three of the four respondents rated the course as better.

FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES

From a faculty and institutional standpoint, there are a series of benefits and opportunities associated with Internet-based teaching, and also a complementary set of issues and costs. The set of benefits and costs varies according to whether synchronous or asynchronous teaching modes are employed. (See Table 5.)

With synchronous Internet-based teaching approach used in the first seminar, it was possible to involve a wider range of expertise (particularly through remote presentations) and bring new resources to the classroom. Both in-class and remote students could be reached, although the diversity between in-class and remote participants in the first seminar led to differences in expectations and experience.

This method of teaching had low additional entry costs from an equipment and software perspective for faculty, and no additional hardware costs for students (if they already had access to the necessary equipment). About $10,000 was spend on hardware and software by the faculty instructor, including roughly $5,000 for the course web server and $2,100 for the Real Server educational license. Yet, these low marginal costs are deceptive. Excluded are the costs of a fully equipped multi-media classroom (a new one starts from about $200,000), fast on-campus networks, and extensive technical and in-session support from university personnel. Without these prior investments and ongoing technical support, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a "regular" faculty member to mount a comprehensive, broadcast Internet course.

The amount of faculty and support time involved in developing and teaching the first live course was considerable. Although no track was kept of this time, it was far more than would be involved in a traditional course. The lead faculty member was assisted by a colleague who also served as an instructor (and also operated the in-class chat facility). Much time was spent in preparation and web site authoring. For the live class, one – and usually two – staff members from the university’s continuing education and distance learning department provided control room, mixing, and monitoring assistance. At least another six staff members from the university’s computing, continuing education, and other departments provided substantive help, ranging from dealing with technical issues and web site operation to marketing and editing.

Furthermore, prior to the course, and during the first few sessions, a considerable amount of time was spent with distance learning registrants to assist them in downloading software, configuring their computers, and resolving problems. The intensive online nature of the seminar also generated much individual and group electronic communication, as well as requiring regular routines of web posting course materials. At the same time, the greatly increased faculty effort and attention in the first class resulted in a course that was highly prepared and organized, and this in itself certainly contributed to an improved student learning experience.

Less up-front time investments were required for the second and third courses (where pre-recorded modules were used). Additional technical support was not needed to run the seminar, nor was it necessary to purchase additional hardware or software. On-campus students were able to master the necessary software with little additional assistance. However, time had to be spent in loading and preparing the web site for asynchronous sessions. Moreover, the particular approach used resulted in a greater than normal degree of faculty-student interaction. Again, there were many individual and group electronic communications around themes raised in the sessions, and in response to student questions and assignments. As noted in other studies (Ellis 1997), students highly valued the flexibility and the ability to self-pace learning offered by asynchronous teaching. Yet, the students also sought a high level of personal interaction with faculty. With the course "content" obtained asynchronously by students without in-class faculty instruction, class and electronic faculty-student interaction thus tended to follow a traditional "tutorial" approach characterized by discussion and dialogue rather than one-way lecturing.

Finally, in both asynchronous and synchronous modes, student expectations of audio and video quality were higher than we were able to meet. Even with current technological constraints, it has to be said that there remained scope to raise the quality level (particularly for the asynchronous Internet-based modules). But this would have required the availability of a larger budget and even more technical assistance to produce and edit modules than we were able to obtain. It remains to be seen whether Internet-based teaching technologies and facilities will evolve to the point where regular faculty (and their institutions) can obtain very high quality sound and visual quality, yet still afford to teach (or "narrowcast") to relatively small, specialized classes, with students dispersed over space and time.

CONCLUSIONS

One of the underlying principles of the industrial modernization field is that new technology must be viewed pragmatically. The small and medium-sized mature companies that typically lag in using modern manufacturing methods are often advised to carefully consider the risks, further development needs, and training costs that are involved in a leapfrog into the newest, most advanced technologies. In such cases, tried and tested "off-the-shelf" technologies, combined with the upgrading of existing approaches, provide workable and more affordable solutions that can subsequently be built upon as part of a strategic approach to improvement.

This philosophy has guided our use of technology in teaching the seminar on industrial modernization. The seminar on industrial modernization has made pragmatic use of available Internet technologies and low-cost/no-cost software. No new software was developed; the expenditure on new equipment to teach the course was modest; and, with access to an Internet-connected computer with a sound card and speakers, students did not need to spend money on any new hardware or software. The course employed multi-media methods of content presentation, using streaming Internet audio broadcasts and slides (the latter prepared using commonly available presentation software). We eschewed video broadcasting, not only because of Internet bandwidth constraints for distant participants but also because of the complexities and costs involved in producing material of acceptable quality and interest (i.e. not "talking heads"). At the same time, we also used conventional technologies and methods. For example, we made frequent use of the telephone to provide an easy feedback loop for distant students and to allow the live Internet broadcast of remote experts during the synchronous teaching mode.

Yet, despite our pragmatic approach, our experience emphasizes that teaching an Internet-based broadcast course requires considerable faculty learning costs and much more preparation time than would be required for a typical conventional course. Moreover, while our marginal hardware and software costs were low, we benefited greatly from access to university multi-media classroom and broadcasting facilities developed, at considerable expense, for satellite and cable television teaching (but easily converted for Internet broadcasting). We also received a great deal of support from technical staff in this facility. While future technological developments may make the necessary technologies easier to use and more portable, at present broadcast teaching via the Internet still requires prior and ongoing institutional investment in facilities, training, and technical support.

We would be the first to admit that online teaching is no substitute for face-to-face interaction between faculty and students – indeed, two of the three versions of the course did build in face-to-face contact. Yet, our judgement, supported by the informal comments of students and formal evaluations of the seminar, is that a pragmatic approach to online teaching works and that student learning is enhanced. In general, students were highly motivated to participate in an online electronic learning environment, through which they could access presentations from experts around the country, required and supplementary readings, participate in electronic discussions, submit assignments, and pursue links for further research. Possibly, student interest in this mode of learning is temporal, and will decline as Internet-based teaching becomes more common. More fundamentally, we believe that the considerable effort we put into the planning, preparation, organization, and teaching of the online seminar, and in student interaction (on and off-line), was the greatest factor in delivering a course that motivated student participants. In this sense, while Internet technologies offer new possibilities for teaching, they do not present any easy short cuts to faculty if the goal is improved student learning.

1. Reported in: British Broadcasting Corporation, World Service radio program on the rise of the Internet, October 1, 1998. See Zakon (1998) for a chronology of the Internet’s growth.

2. An AltaVista search engine http://www.altavista.com/ inquiry on October 14, 1998, found over 194,000 web pages at American educational institutions that contained the terms "course outline" or "course syllabus." The search identified about 360 web pages at American educational institutions that combined "course outline or syllabus" with "city, urban, or regional" and "planning" (using additional terms that reduced extraneous pages).

3. Many television and radio stations are already broadcasting in real-time using the Internet streaming technologies. See http://www.real.com/realguide/index.html for listings of Internet streaming media broadcast outlets.

4. For example, the University of Phoenix "Online University" now enrolls approximately 4,300 students, with all degrees offered online (see http://www.uophx.edu/online). 

5. For details of this research, see the World Wide Web site of the Georgia Tech Policy Project on Industrial Modernization at http://www.cherry.gatech.edu/mod.

6. The bandwidth available through telephone dial-up connections to Internet services has increased from the 28.8 to 33.6 kilobytes per second (KBPS) then common at the time we planned the first seminar to 56 KBPS (download) today. At the faster speed, streaming video transmission is feasible, although picture quality and size are still limited. Users with ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) lines, which have speeds of 128 KBPS, or T1 (1.544 MBPS) or faster connections can readily receive streaming video feeds. Speeds of up to 1.5 MBPS over telephone lines could be possible in the near future.

7. Software is available with chat-room capabilities for voice and video, as well as typed messages (for example, Microsoft NetMeeting). However, besides the extra bandwidth and equipment that would be required, we decided to use only typed messages in our chat room, to avoid problems of broadcasting and receiving too many voices (and images) at once.

8. For an example of a presentation linking slides and voice, see R. Combes, "The development of industrial modernization at the state level: Georgia's experience," Seminar on Industrial Modernization 1997, at http://cherry.iac.gatech.edu/audio/combes.ram. An Internet-connected multi-media computer, web browser, and prior installation of Real Player is required.

Center for Distance Learning, 1998, "Overview of Recent Developments in Distance Learning at Georgia Tech", Georgia Institute of Technology, presentation transmitted by email, October.

Chute, A., Sayers, P. and Gardner, P., 1998. Networked Learning Environments, CEDL Published Articles, Lucent Technologies Center for Excellence in Distance Learning, http://www.lucent.com/cedl/networked-learning.html.

Ellis, B., compiler and editor, 1997. Virtual Classroom Technologies for Distance Education: The Case for On-line Synchronous Delivery. DETAC Corporation. http://www.detac.com/solution/naweb97.htm

Garson, G.D. 1996. The Political Economy of Online Education. North Carolina State University. http://hcl.chass.ncsu.edu/score/css96.txt.

Garson, G.D. 1997, Implementation of Web-Based Teaching in Political Science, North Carolina State University. http://hcl.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/ps201/apsa97/garson.htm.

NIST, 1998. World Wide Web site of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, http://www.mep.nist.gov.

Shapira, P., 1998. Manufacturing Extension: Performance, Challenges and Policy Issues, in L. Branscomb and J. Keller, eds. Investing in Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 250-275.

Speer, T.L. 1996. A Nation of Students, American Demographics, August, 32-45.

Neal, L., 1997. Virtual Classrooms and Virtual Communities, Proceedings of ACM Group 97 Conference, Phoenix, AZ, November 16-19, http://www.lucent.com/cedl/group97.html.

Winner, L., 1998. Report from the Digital Diploma Mills Conference, Tech Knowledge Review, June 2. Excerpted in Loka Institute electronic newsletter on subject of virtual universities, Loka Alert 5:3, June 17, 1998. http://www.loka.org.

Zakon, R., compiler, 1998, Hobbes’ Internet Timeline, http://info.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Internet/History/HIT.html.

• Hardware – Internet-connected computer, Pentium or faster preferred (or Macintosh equivalent), sound card (16-bit or better), speakers or headphones.
• Internet-connection – for streaming audio, minimum dial-up modem speed 28.8 kilobytes per second (KBPS). Faster connection speeds result in improved quality and response. For streaming video, 56 KBPS or faster is desirable.
• World Wide Web Browser – table and forms-capable browser, e.g., Netscape 2.0 or higher, or Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 or higher. See http://www.microsoft.com/ or http://www.netscape.com/.
• Chat software – for MS Windows http://www.mirc.co.uk/get.html. For Macintosh http://www.ircle.com.
• Streaming Media Player – RealPlayer from RealNetworks, Inc. Free download from http://www.realcom.
• Electronic mail (e-mail) – capable of reading attachments, e.g. Eudora http://www.eudora.com/ or Microsoft Outlook http://www.microsoft.com/.
• Electronic document reader – Acrobat Reader by Adobe Systems Inc., http://www.adobe.com.

All hardware and software required by students plus:

• Internet-connected computer server – high capacity computer server with high-speed connection to the Internet. The specifications for the computer we used: 200 MHz Pentium Pro processor, 128 MB of memory, about 10 gigabytes (GB) of disk storage, all drives SCSI for optimal speed, running Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, continuous power supply, connected to 10MBPS ethernet network, routed to Internet through OC3 backbone. 1 GB Jaz drive for backup.
• Web hosting/authoring software and course web pages – We used Microsoft FrontPage, but many other web hosting and authoring packages are available. A graphical editor, such as Microsoft Image Composer, is also desirable.
• Streaming media encoder and server – RealServer – licensed from RealNetworks, Inc. http://www.real.com/, with an educational license for 70 simultaneous users. This software can also be used to edit recorded Real media files and to link media files with web pages, to create integrated multi-media presentations.
• Electronic document creation – Adobe Acrobat Exchange http://www.adobe.com/ to create files viewable by the Adobe Reader Plug-In. Color scanner also required.
• Sound and video recording facilities – For live teaching, dedicated and well-equipped facilities to ensure best sound and video quality, including microphones, video cameras and monitors, input monitoring and mixing equipment and output feed to fast Internet connected server running RealServer to encode and stream broadcast feed. For teaching only distance participants or with pre-recorded content, a multi-media computer workstation with sound and video capabilities may be feasible.
• Group electronic mailing list manager – we used listserve – a common mailing list manager from L-SOFT International that has versions for multi-operating systems.
• Telephone link – Allows easy voice feedback for live teaching with distance participants and connections with remote experts. Toll-free number encourages participation. Ability to "feed" telephone conversation into classroom and/or media encoder.

Notes:

a. Students play pre-recorded modules at any time within a one-week period

b. Registered external remote student sites. Others listened to the seminar online without registering.

c. Offered as a special topic for individual students, without open registration.

RETURN TO TEXT

RETURN TO TEXT

Table 3. Effectiveness of Technologies and Methods Used in First Online Seminar on Industrial Modernization

Notes:

a. Based on 1-5 scale, where: 5 = highly effective, 3 = moderately effective, 1= not effective.

b. Percentage of respondents scoring 4 or 5.

c. Evaluation survey of campus-based in-class students, after 6 classes, Spring 1997 Seminar on Industrial Modernization. N=11. Conducted by Loping Wei.

d. Final evaluation survey of distance learning participants, Spring 1997 Seminar on Industrial Modernization. N=8.

RETURN TO TEXT

Table 4. Effectiveness of Technologies and Methods Used in Second and Third Online Seminars on Industrial Modernization

Notes:

a. Based on 1-5 scale, where: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = partially agree and partially disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree.

b. Percentage of respondents scoring 4 or 5.

c. End-of-seminar evaluation of students in Seminar on Industrial Modernization, Fall 1997 and Winter 1998. N=6.

d. Fall 1997 seminar only (N=4)

e. Winter 1997 seminar only (N=2)

RETURN TO TEXT

RETURN TO TEXT

Figure 1. First Online Seminar on Industrial Modernization: Synchronous Teaching Mode

SELECT TO VIEW

RETURN TO TOP

Posted on January 14, 2004