Case Study: Walking the Synchronous Learning Tight Rope—Without a Producer
By Moira Hunter

The complaints are not new: Face-to-face conferences on e-learning often fail to “practice what they preach” because they omit or diminish the online element. Likewise, many online presentations on e-learning are mere replacements of basic sit-and-listen lectures. Here was my opportunity to do something different.

Recently, I was a presenter during a 72-hour online conference held by Webheads in Action, which is a community of practice for language educators who practice in technology-enhanced language learning. The design for my presentation was both ambitious and demanding. My intent was to illustrate that the success of a synchronous event is a blend of factors, combining a mixture of content presentation with open discussion.

Indeed, verbal communication, group interaction, rich content, and user-friendly technology are essential factors necessary for success. For my one-hour presentation, I used the Interwise iMeeting web conferencing environment. In iMeeting, all participants can take an active role, and control can be passed freely between participants within the session. In addition, the Voice Active Mode provides a more natural ‘open floor’ environment because all participants can speak simultaneously by speaking into the microphone. 

Initial plans

The title of the event was “The AEIOU of Real-Time Language Learning: Attract, Engage, Involve Online Users.” The overall objective of this real-time event was to challenge and actively engage participants for 60 minutes in a collaborative and interactive discussion by using some of the tools available within the comprehensive platform. I also wanted to impart some examples for combining asynchronous and synchronous tools for technology-enhanced language learning opportunities. More important, the participants would be able to appraise

·       the appropriateness of live online learning in their own practice

·       how to use the available technology for web conferencing, as well as other Web 2.0 tools

     and above all

·       the skills and competencies required to deliver, facilitate, and sustain a collaborative, learner-centered experience that achieves the specified learning objective.

I had taken great pains to plan and prepare for a participatory event, defining in advance the format, presentation, and procedures for each performance objective within the designed flow of communication and pattern for the session, while remaining focused on the purpose of the event and the desired overall outcome.

The idea was to invite participants to interact with the platform technology, to collaborate with peers, and to contemplate the necessary ingredients for a successful online learning event. The intended ongoing discussion was planned to demonstrate and reflect the degree to which a comprehensive web conferencing platform, with a well-planned structure and flexible approach, could lead to a flexible learning environment that attracts, engages, and involves the online user in the synchronous group learning experience. The event’s assessment, which was aligned to the learning outcomes, was to be announced at the beginning of the event and collected and summarized at the end of the event.

Pre-session planning was essential for this program. Although aimed at language educators, the online conference was open to anyone and free; therefore, such variables as topic interest, number of participants, and technical knowledge of the target audience was unknown. While this stage is rarely acknowledged by the participants, it is both time consuming and imperative for success. A program that is well-prepared and organized will likely seem more fluid and flexible, reducing the chance for any unintentional omission of planned input during the session. Clarity of purpose, intent, and feasibility are paramount to ensure the successful flow of interaction and content during the live event.

Enter the producer

Due to the extensive learning objectives, combined with the unknown factors regarding the target audience, a producer or assistant trainer was essential for me to remain focused on delivering content and facilitating interaction. The benefits of having a producer are innumerable: They not only provide technical support, but also reduce the stress level for the presenter by helping to manage unforeseen difficulties.

Because this was the first time the producer I planned to use would play this sort of role in the synchronous environment, I created a clear leader guide. The leader guide outlined the specific tasks for myself and the producer, together with a script of pre-arranged conversation input. We then discussed, collaborated on, fine-tuned, and practiced the program.

Throughout the design phase, judicious decisions were made to account for the audience, interface, level and feasibility of intended interactivity and collaboration, time constraints, and overall learning outcomes. The plan was to discretely introduce participants to the necessary technical features of the virtual room with the help of co-teaching strategies and techniques, without overburdening the participants with technology or instruction. For example, participants would enter the event in Voice Active Mode with microphones unmuted, and at strategic points within the session the Queued Mode would be initiated with a two-way conversation between the presenter and producer that can be heard by all.

Together, the producer and I decided the amount of ‘cold’ technical training we would give participants at the beginning of and during the session. The program was not intended to be a technical demonstration of the platform but an awareness-raising session about the deployment of this type of technology and the skills and competencies needed to facilitate an interactive and collaborative learning event supported by solid preparation and planning. The producer’s role was carefully defined in advance and focused on dealing with any technical questions or problems that would arise both shortly before and during the event.

The plan was to have the producer introduce the text chat and whiteboard functions to people new to the technology as they logged on. We had outlined ground rules for dealing with late arrivals, as well as those with technical problems logging on. Because the mere change of voice and face is important in establishing the online environment, we planned for the presenter and producer to both have operating webcams with live video transmitting when a participant was speaking.

In order to encourage full interaction within the text chat area, this feature was not limited in any way. In addition, the producer’s role was to moderate the message area, answering any questions in text and to intervene verbally with the presenter when necessary. The producer’s role also was to highlight pertinent points from the text chat and scribe onto the whiteboard and to summarize the most important points. Once modeled, the producer was to invite volunteers to summarize and annotate the visuals on the whiteboard at different stages within the event. Finally, the producer had copies of all the content with the updated leader guide. This enabled the producer to personally mark up the content for further reminders and tips.

We scheduled a test run to review the program’s flow and fine tune any gaps or bumps in the flow. We set up emergency protocols, established IM contacts, and exchanged phone numbers. We also had prearranged a warning signal in the virtual environment itself. A final realistic dress rehearsal was held in the virtual room using the connections and hardware two hours before the scheduled online event. This was crucial because we were in two different continents and time zones.

The reality of the synchronous online event is often different to the carefully planned design, as all experienced synchronous online trainers know--and this was no exception!

Best laid plans...

Murphy’s Law strikes again: Disaster struck when the producer lost all Internet connection just as the scheduled event was about to begin. Participants were entering the room for the event; some were sending instant messages to me, while others were late arriving due to a previous presentation. Furthermore, one participant was being particularly demanding, all in the midst of the immediate panic and impact of realizing that there was no producer.

After a phone call from the producer, I decided to go solo as time was limited and the clock was already ticking. Fortunately, I had prepared and uploaded the actual content well in advance. I was extremely relieved to have printed the necessary documents; the leader guide and script together with the PowerPoint slides were on my desk. I desperately scribbled in changes where possible to account for the producer’s absence, and I tried to remain focused on the delivery and the clock.

I decided to turn off my webcam, which was not planned, in order to focus totally on making on-the-fly changes rather than have my attention drawn to the webcam image I was transmitting. The absence of the producer’s voice and the two webcams clearly reduced the intended immediate creation of a ‘personal’ online environment.

Because I was using Interwise iMeeting, the event had been set in Voice Activate Mode, which allows multiple participants to speak into the microphone without having the cumbersome and sometimes frustrating task of holding down the Ctrl key to speak. Also, all participants were given full access to the drawing toolbar. These settings had been chosen to offer the most open environment possible for a fruitful discussion across the floor. However, there were immediate audio problems with severe disturbances and echoes, despite my pleas for participants to close other applications running on their computers--and despite my unheard calls for technical help to the iMeeting venue sponsor, who was present in the online room, to take over this technical aspect.

To avoid further loss of time and disruption, I muted all participants by initiating the Queued Mode for the first whiteboard interaction rather than using the raised hand icon as had been planned. The raised hand icon is useful in large events and I had prepared several grids of 8, 12, 20, and 25 numbered boxes and had intended participants to remember their numbers and to mark up in their boxes. This was especially important because you cannot use drag-and-drop to move annotations should participants write over each other’s input. Despite being assured by the venue sponsor prior to the event that the queuing feature was appropriate for a large audience, I discovered live that it is limited to the first five responses, which meant I needed to make immediate changes to this and other activities.

When voice activation is being used, ‘non-speaking’ sounds can be picked up by the participants’ microphones. In addition, the event was being streamed and recorded by a third party. This aspect, in fact, was creating the greatest audio disruption to the event. By activating the queue mode, I had unintentionally restricted the whiteboard capabilities for the participants. As a presenter, I always have these rights and did not realize until I had modeled the interaction and noted that no one was writing. As a result, text messages asking for the drawing tools were coming in. I therefore quickly selected Voice Activate Mode again and then instructed participants how to mute themselves as the audio disruptions were back.

To retain some of the designed interactivity, I asked a participant--whom I had recently given a complete tour of the platform features--to summarize the text chat input by annotating a specific slide in the workspace. As I was obliged to mute everyone again as certain participants were not muting themselves, I gave presenting rights to the volunteer and continued with the content delivery. Unfortunately, there were no mark ups but plenty of silence. My ‘selected’ volunteer later informed me that he froze in panic. Realizing there was a problem, I requested presenter’s rights as I did not want to take them back abruptly. I activated voice and whiteboard capabilities for all participants, instructing them to mute themselves, having decided that I would let the session flow naturally and warned participants about the eventual ‘messiness’ of annotated slides.

I had intended to pass the floor over to participants much more often than actually happened. But in the absence of the producer, I focused on moderating the text area and answering any questions while continuing with the content delivery. Although interaction prompts, such as hand raising, calling on volunteers, and further polls, had been planned, they went astray as on-the-fly adaptations were made. For example, I skipped a second poll in order to regain some much needed time.

A key note speaker was following immediately after my presentation and the timing had to be exact, despite all the disruptions and stumbling blocks. For the program’s conclusion, I had prepared to post a humorous cartoon before collecting participants’ evaluation input. In retrospect, I should have totally omitted the cartoon in order to allow more time for evaluative input.

Lessons learned

Once connections with the producer were established after the event, we conducted an initial debriefing. An additional debriefing occurred after the producer viewed and analyzed the recording. We discussed lessons learned and noted issues for future team work. The design was ambitious and I would deliver it again in a virtual room with some 20 participants--but only with a producer to ensure its complete and fluid flow in given time constraints. With regards to the audio disruptions from participants and their inability to mute their microphones, I would maintain the event settings but display a notice with instructions concerning the mute icon and Ctrl key at the beginning of the event, and the producer could then mute individuals with problems.

As the presenter, immediately after the event, I felt that it was a disaster. However, when I analyzed the recording much later, I realized that it was in fact a total success for the learning outcome I had set, despite the stumbling blocks. The blended factors leading to a successful real-time event were all present: rich content, an engaged audience, participatory interaction and collaboration, a multitasking facilitator, reliable technology, and, despite the absence of the producer and audio disruptions from the participants, a satisfactory flow. The idea hit home when I reviewed the recorded audio, annotations, and the text area; observed the high level of participatory interaction and collaboration; and when I read a participant’s message at the end of the event, saying “Now I know what AEIOU means.”

 Published: March 2008