Virtual Collaborative Learning: A Comparison between Face-to-Face Tutored Video Instruction (TVI) and Distributed Tutored Video Instruction (DTVI)

Tutored Video Instruction (TVI) is a collaborative learning methodology in which a small group of students studies a videotape of a lecture. We constructed a fully virtual version of TVI called Distributed Tutored Video Instruction (DTVI), in which each student has a networked computer with audio microphone-headset and video camera to support communication within the group. In this report, we compare survey questionnaires, observations of student interactions, and grade outcomes for students in the face-to-face TVI condition with those of students in the DTVI condition. Our analysis also includes comparisons with students in the original lecture. This two and a half year study involved approximately 700 students at two universities. Despite finding a few statistically significant process differences between TVI and DTVI, the interactions were for the most part quite similar. Course grade outcomes for TVI and DTVI were indistinguishable, and these collaborative conditions proved better than lecture. We conclude that this kind of highly interactive virtual collaboration can be an effective way to learn.

[1]  Clifford Nass,et al.  When my face is the interface: an experimental comparison of interacting with one's own face or someone else's face , 1998, CHI.

[2]  Douglas H. Clements,et al.  Social and Cognitive Interactions in Educational Computer Environments , 1988 .

[3]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Conversations Over Video Conferences: An Evaluation of the Spoken Aspects of Video-Mediated Communication , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  木村 和夫.  Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[5]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. , 1997 .

[6]  Robert,et al.  The VideoWindow System in Informal Communications , 1990 .

[7]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  The role of vision in face-to-face and mediated communication. , 1997 .

[8]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Handbook of Research for educational Communications and Technology , 1997 .

[9]  K. Bach,et al.  Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts , 1983 .

[10]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Impact of Goal and Resource Interdependence on Problem-Solving Success , 1989 .

[11]  Youngme Moon,et al.  The effects of distance in local versus remote human-computer interaction , 1998, CHI.

[12]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  A poor quality video link affects speech but not gaze , 1995, CHI 95 Conference Companion.

[13]  N. Webb.  Student Interaction and Learning in Small Groups , 1982 .

[14]  J F Gibbons,et al.  Tutored videotape instruction: a new use of electronics media in education. , 1977, Science.

[15]  I. Vine,et al.  Territoriality and the Spatial Regulation of Interaction , 1975 .

[16]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research , 1989 .

[17]  Penelope L. Peterson,et al.  Students' Cognitions as Mediators of the Effectiveness of Small-Group Learning , 1985 .

[18]  Carmen Egido,et al.  Video conferencing as a technology to support group work: a review of its failures , 1988, CSCW '88.

[19]  Fred M. Newmann,et al.  Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement in Secondary Schools: A Summary of Research. , 1987 .

[20]  Penelope L. Peterson,et al.  The Relationship of Student Ability and Small-Group Interaction to Student Achievement , 1982 .

[21]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Speech patterns in video-mediated conversations , 1992, CHI.

[22]  G. Salomon.  The differential investment of mental effort in learning from different sources , 1983 .

[23]  Caroline Gale.  The effects of gaze awareness on dialogue in a video-based collaborative manipulative task , 1998, CHI Conference Summary.

[24]  M. Patterson,et al.  Interpersonal Distance, Affect, and Equilibrium Theory , 1977 .

[25]  John C. Tang,et al.  A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations , 1995, CHI '95.

[26]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  The VideoWindow system in informal communication , 1990, CSCW '90.

[27]  E. Cohen.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[28]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Through a Glass Darkly What Do People Learn in Videoconferences , 1995 .

[29]  A. Kendon,et al.  Organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction , 1975 .

[30]  I. Altman,et al.  Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships , 1973 .

[31]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[32]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[33]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication , 1992, CHI.

[34]  N. Webb.  Task-Related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups. , 1991 .

[35]  Paul L. Beare.  The Comparative Effectiveness of Videotape, Audiotape, and Telelecture in Delivering Continuing Teacher Education , 1989 .

[36]  Herbert L. Colston,et al.  Looking and lingering as conversational cues in video-mediated communication , 1995, CHI 95 Conference Companion.

[37]  Masood Masoodian,et al.  An experimental evaluation of video support for shared work-space interaction , 1995, CHI '95.

[38]  John C. Tang,et al.  What video can and cannot do for collaboration: A case study , 1993, MULTIMEDIA '93.

[39]  Elena Rocco,et al.  Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact , 1998, CHI.

[40]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .