Back to school: design principles for improving webcast interactivity from face-to-face classroom observation

This paper presents an observational study of face-to-face university classrooms and provides preliminary design principles for improving interactivity in "webcast" presentations. Despite the fact that participation and interaction patterns appear to depend heavily on presentation style and class size, useful patterns were observed and analyzed. Design principles presented include the need to support rapid changes in floor control, multiple types of presentation technologies, and the subtleties of awareness between the audience and presenter.

[1]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[2]  Gale Moore,et al.  ePresence Interactive Media and Webforum 2001: An Accidental Case Study on the Use of Webcasting as a VLE for Early Child Development , 2006 .

[3]  Yvonne Steinert,et al.  Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations , 1999 .

[4]  Marilla D. Svinicki,et al.  McKeachie''s Teaching Tips , 2006 .

[5]  Ellen Isaacs,et al.  A forum for supporting interactive presentations to distributed audiences , 1994, CSCW '94.

[6]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Lessons learned from eClass: Assessing automated capture and access in the classroom , 2004, TCHI.

[7]  Milton Chen,et al.  Design of a virtual auditorium , 2001, MULTIMEDIA '01.

[8]  Ronald Baecker.  A principled design for scalable internet visual communications with rich media, interactivity, and structured archives , 2003, CASCON.

[9]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  How do people organize their desks?: Implications for the design of office information systems , 1983, TOIS.

[10]  Raven Wallace,et al.  Online Learning in Higher Education: a review of research on interactions among teachers and students , 2003 .

[11]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Meeting at the desktop: An empirical study of virtually collocated teams , 1999, ECSCW.

[12]  Kara A. Latorella,et al.  The Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  Alenoush Saroyan,et al.  Variations in lecturing styles , 1997 .

[14]  Daniel Vogel,et al.  Distant freehand pointing and clicking on very large, high resolution displays , 2005, UIST.

[15]  C McFarlaneDaniel,et al.  The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design , 2002 .

[16]  Jeremy P. Birnholtz,et al.  Enhancing interactivity in webcasts with VoIP , 2006, CHI EA '06.

[17]  Wilbert J. McKeachie,et al.  Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background. , 1990 .

[18]  Anoop Gupta,et al.  Videography for telepresentations , 2003, CHI '03.

[19]  Anoop Gupta,et al.  Presenting to local and remote audiences: design and use of the TELEP system , 2000, CHI.

[20]  Armando Fox,et al.  The Interactive Workspaces Project: Experiences with Ubiquitous Computing Rooms , 2002, IEEE Pervasive Comput..

[21]  C. Habel,et al.  Language , 1931, NeuroImage.

[22]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Beyond the chalkboard: computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings , 1988, CACM.

[23]  Mark S. Ackerman,et al.  The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap Between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Groupwork close up: a comparison of the group design process with and without a simple group editor , 1993, TOIS.

[25]  John C. Tang.  Findings from Observational Studies of Collaborative Work , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..