Abstract

1. Introduction

Meeting Y2K, universities have been called upon to make significant increases in the quality and quantity of its education. Consequently, faculties have been exploring the use of Information Technology (IT) together with course/ classroom management software solutions as a means to enhance and extend the traditional classroom setting with possible later extension into mediated distance environment. Generally, university faculties who were slightly positive about the concept of distance education were more negative about their personal use of distance education (Clark, 1993).

However, recent development of Video Conference System (VCS) enhanced them to accept IT without troublesome training. Therefore, VCS into campus is becoming more common mediated distance method.

Initiating VCS in campuses, it was reported that face to face style, transforming information to other sites synchronously, is the best way (Coventry, 1995). Actually, it has been found that lecture is best used for initial application of VCS into universities. Also, the available research consistently concludes that lecture is one of the least effective methods of conveying information (Lowman, 1984). In addition, there is evidence that mature students who are working preferred flexibility to live video conference interaction (Stone, 1992). In this view, VCS is a beneficial way that enables staff adaptation for multimesia when the beginning of IT in universities.

Therein, we can see the many of statements in the similarities of instructional methodological aspect, and the many of statements in the differences of emerging communication between classrooms.

Then, in this tryout, we intended to investigate activities of spontaneous communication strokes of students, and try to elicit substantial characteristics and limitation of VCS environment for seeking the way of faculty development.

In this study, we attempted to clarify underlining possibility of frequent communication among students in VCS class by comparison between a basic VCS application and a detected communication way of Flexible Text Discussion (FTD) (Fig.1).

Tryout of two trials was executed on 26^th August 1988 with fully open the process to outside researchers at National Institute of Multimedia Education by MLSI Project (Media Literacy and Instructional Skills Research and Development Department).

3-1 FTD System

The TNC, in itself, has independent CPU inside it to inspect the audio signal, and if it confirms silent time in audio signal environment, immediately, a TNC emits text encoded audio signal with forecasting packet size to its output.

Equally, introducing audio output signal of VCS to each TNC, artificially, it enables virtual environment that every computer communicates within a same audio space (Fig.3).

Two distance classrooms were used in this tryout. In each classroom, three engaged college students and one Prof. were prepared. A Prof. of a classroom took a part as a teacher, and another Prof. acted as a facilitator.

3-3 Learning Activity

In advance to trials, assignment pictures were delivered to all the students, then they were required to point out the mistake or unsuitable procedures drown on a picture through distance discussion.
This learning methodology with a pictue is called as "Hazard Drawing" (a sample picture shown in Fig. 4), and originally, it was developed in England to teach safety experimental process in school science class. Applying this potential predisposition, in this tryout, Hazard Drawing was used to assign straightforward "open question" to students.

Each trial took about 20 minutes to conclude their discussion. Table 1 and 2 shows the communication strokes of students with partners in trial A and trial B, respectively.
Number 1-6 in lows and fields show student's number, and "s" extension means 'message sending' and "r" extension means 'message receiving.' Item "All" means the numbers of messages spoken to the all members. Student 1,2,3 or student 4,5,6 located in the same classroom.

Table 1: Communication in Trial A

                  (message numbers in receive / send table)

Table 2: Communication in Trial B

                     (message numbers in receive / send table)

Total numbers of communication strokes are 16 and 34 in trial A and trial B, respectively.

As an apparent result, trial B produced more frequent communication of students than trial A. In spite of the embarrassment of key inputting, students expressed rich communication in trial B.

Even a real classroom, it would occur students' positional restriction for communication.

If there are four members more, we can not arrange each student at the same distance with others. Thereby, it frequently occurs chain or centered networks because of this restriction (e.g. Y in Fig.6).

However, the result of in this study shows limited communication in VCS setting. In addition, they preferred to discuss with local peers during the group discussion (Table3).

Table 3: Directions of Communication Strokes in Trials

From the recent expository reports, we could find the two reasons for this result; limited function of equipment and psychological barrier.

Getting out the fascination of technology, from a very objective view, VCS of ISDN has apparently the following limitation (Maye, 1997):

- not synchronous ( Audio time delay of approx. .3 - .5 seconds ),

- poor resolution monitor view (384 x 256),

- low frame rate adds to lack of realism,

- lack of eye contact,

- large time delays for visual transfer.

Also, it was reported a biggest problem of VCS for group lesson as audibility (Ronka A., op.cit., 1966).

Fairly, low audio visual function of VSC can not view the sufficient panorama view of the other side. However, the fact of concept can be view as small windows between classroom. Even a teacher or a facilitator arousal students' more dialogue, they can not see and hear enough from laborious information acquisition if it has a number of students.

However, it can not conclude finite communication observed in this study to be just because technological limitation.

In the ethnographical research, it was reported that most staffs felt less involved with remote students, and were unable to keep remote lectures from becoming cold or impersonal (Kendall et al., 1994).

A major concern in this problem is the psychological barriers that is derived from above mentioned a small window environment. In addtion, the fear that students were reviewed on visually or actually, and they felt uncomfortable to be evaluated as same visible classroom environment.

Other psychological barriers include following preconceptions (Lane, 1995),

Also, after the egregious difficulties of communication, it can be assumed two pursuasive straytegies for instructional styles would emerge. One is negative strategy that teachers would be disappointed about synchronous communication and move their instruction to video materials as distribution of information, and another is anticipatory strategy that teachers confirm the importance of communication skills of students and motivate them to develop for aiming collaborative environment.

None of the results in this study provided firm evidence that FTD among the students could elicit more deliberate communication than VCS one. We just concentrated to count the number of strokes, did not take into consideration to content of discussion, context, time discuss, or depth of messages.

However, the way that we should select is fairly clear. This trial was basically intended to have discussion, and six engaged students were required to do discussion, nevertheless VCS method could not be observed frequent strokes between sites but exchanged opinions after the local discussion. Then, we must perceive the importance of additional communication skills in VCS lesson.

Researches reported that the initial step of improving communication in classroom was increasing strokes among students, not to increase time required in a message or depth of a message (Blosser, 1997). Then, our confrontation issue for immediate faculty development would be embedded in this finding.

It can be intimidating to speak into VCS, but students' communication skills are an important part of discussion. Pay careful attention to blurred monitor view and be certain that student understand what is being spoken (Peterson's by Virtual Ink Press, 1988).

Depersonalization can occur due to lack of physical contact from another site. Students view a speaker as an object on the screen. The facilitator must overcome this and develop an environment of trust and co-operation. Building up student engagement is more difficult at a distance. The facilitator should endeavor to get to know how students could incorporate learning (Coventry, op.cit., 1995).

Maye proposed "Learning Cycle Theory" to show the progress steps of students' distance learning competencies. In this theory, three steps of learning are shown, such as, Conceptualization, Construction, and Dialog. And in Dialog step, learners are expected to have their own perceptions of a topics, discuss findings with peers and tutors, follow this with reflecting on their discussion, and finally make the topic into a distinct object which can be used as the new acquired skills (Video Conference and Learning, 1997).

In this point of view, teachers have to acquire new skills to assume expanded roles to distance learning (Beaudoin, 1990), even they can use the accustomed teaching style in VCS.

We do not fully conduct the research for psychological limitations of video conferencing, more research in this area is essential.