MSU IT ExchangeFebruary 4, 2009

Welcome!

Agenda• Announcements

• Community ID– Matt Kolb, Academic Technology Services

• Video Conferencing– John Ford and Pete Redovich, Health

Information Technologies (HIT)

• January 2009 IT Environment Document– Dave Gift, Vice Provost for Libraries,

Computing, and Technology

Community ID•

•

•

•

•

Background• The College of Osteopathic Medicine (COM) is

expanding to two sites in southeast Michigan– Macomb University Center– Detroit Medical Center

• The College of Human Medicine is expanding to one site in Grand Rapids.

• Video conferencing has been identified as the delivery method for expansion in both colleges.

What is Video Conferencing?

• The simultaneous, real-time transmission of video and audio between two or more points in both directions. Can include data.

• Between two locations: point-to-point• Between three or more locations: multi-point.

You can use a built in MCU for bridging or use a stand alone MCU for multi-point conferencing.

Ed Tech Challenges

• Many Environmental ConcernsLighting:

– People must be lit for broadcast as well as for local functionality• Minimal glare• Minimal shadows

– Viewing areas must be kept dark

Ed Tech Challenges• Content:

– must be digital to be broadcast-ready– must allow for “improvisation” and creativity

• Video:– most variable in its importance:– The presenter who “talks with hands”

vs. the “talking head” presenter

Degree of audience detail required in discussion mode

Ed Tech Challenges

Video Conferencing

The NetworkThe single most important thing. Without it, everything fails.

Ed Tech Challenges

Video

Conferencing

Can Merit Help?

• We are currently in the last week of our Merit Video Conferencing Monitoring Pilot.– 40 port hours scheduled a week.– Use Merit MCU for connecting Southeast Michigan

sites and East Lansing– Monitoring statistics provided with real time and

alerts inculded– We hope to proactive when connectivity issues

arise with real time monitoring technology

Merit Network Measurement

Node

Video Conferencing

Codec

Merit MCU

Campus Border

Merit Network Measurement

Node

Video Conferencing

Codec

Merit Network Measurement

Node

Video Conferencing

Codec

Merit Network Measurement

Node

Merit Network Measurement

Node

Ann Arbor Merit Campus

DetroitDMC Campus

DetroitMacomb Campus

East LansingMSU Main Campus

Merit Network

A normal electrocardiogram from an elderly woman in which the electrical position of the heart is horizontal. The electrical axis is about -30°.

Friedman HH. Diagnostic Electrocardiography and Vectorcardiography. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1971.

Instructional Design• Multiple styles of instruction• Several multi-media types

– PowerPoint– Digital video– Document camera– Digital word documents

• Multiple interaction types– Instructor to student– Student to instructor– Student to student

A normal electrocardiogram from an elderly woman in which the electrical position of the heart is horizontal. The electrical axis is about -30°.

Friedman HH. Diagnostic Electrocardiography and Vectorcardiography. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1971.

Selecting Video Conferencing Equipment

• Invited both LifeSize and Polycom to provide demonstrations of video conferencing systems

• Asked Laurence Bates from the College of Education for input on their current Polycom implementation

• Purchased two LifeSize Room systems for extended testing

• Used two Polycom HDX systems for our Pilot Study for COM

Based on Our Experience with Video Conferencing Equipment

• LifeSize systems are good for small scale conferencing. The user interface needs more work. The audio/video connections are very simple. Excel at multipoint conferencing. Value for cost.

• Polycom HDX systems audio and microphones are outstanding. The user interface is not optimal but more straight forward than LifeSize. The HDX 9004 is well suited for large scale video conferencing with pro style audio/video connections. Be very detailed in the review of what comes with the system.

MSU-COM Synchronous Learning Pilot Study

Structure and Outcomes

Presenter:

John McDaniel, MAAcademic Technology Coordinator

Health Information Technology -Educational Technology Group

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

• Purpose– To identify the multi-faceted elements

needed to deliver effective synchronous education at multiple sites - before we spent any money

• Pilot Study Members– K. Hortos, G.Willyerd, G.Riegle,

J. McDaniel, P. Lovell, M. Hodgins, P. Redovich, S. Balmer

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

Pilot Study Design:– 6 testing dates Jan. - March 2008– 2 testing classrooms

• E105 Fee (broadcasting classroom, seats 148)• E202 Fee (far site classroom, seats 110)

– 12 Lecture blocks for feedback– 36 participating students divided into 2

groups• Group room assignments split between the 2

testing classrooms

E105 Fee Hall Instructor View

E202 Fee Hall w/Polycom SD and VNC

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

Instructional Media• PowerPoint presentations• Word documents• CD-ROM• Slides • Transparencies• Laser pointer• Computer mouse pointer

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

Broadcast Systems– Whatever we had on hand

• Mediasite Live• Polycom SD (Standard Definition)

– Whatever we could borrow• Lifesize Room HD• Polycom HDX 8000 and 9000 series• Lots of audio gear from MSU Museum

and Wharton Center

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

Presentation Styles

• Traditional lecture format with questions (N=10)

• Case presentation with classroom participation

(N=1)

• Panel presentation with class discussion (N=1)

• i-Clicker participation (N=2)

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

Suggestions for Immediate Improvement in the “local” Classroom

• Repeat questions before answering • Use computer mouse pointer• Use appropriate font size in PowerPoint or

other digital documents • More i-Clicker implementation

At the far site (E202), which of the following elements is most important?

Student Ratings

1. Audio (hearing presenter)

2. Content (PPT, CD-ROM)

3. Video (seeing presenter)

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

Student Feedback Questionnaire (5-point Likert scale)

1. Seeing the instructor assisted with my comprehension of the lecture content.

2. Seeing the projected material assisted with my comprehension of the lecture content.

3. I could hear the instructor clearly.4. I could hear the far site participant’s

comments/questions clearly.5. The instructor’s attention to the far site was

a distraction to me.

Student Feedback Both Sites (Rooms E105/E202)Positive

• Seeing instructor• Using mouse pointer• Quieter room• Larger video screen• i-Clicker participation

Negative• Hearing questions• Asking questions• Instructor moving out

of frame• Unable to see demo• Not like being in class• Unable to see laser

pointer • Audio issues

MSU-COMSynchronous Learning Pilot Study

Student Suggestions For Improvement• Use computer mouse pointer• Use PowerPoint with appropriate font size• Repeat questions before answering• More i-Clicker use• Signal light for far site questions• Stand within the camera viewing area

Questions?

IT Environment•

•

•

•

•

Open Discussions

Next Meeting

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

3:30 p.m.

Erickson Kiva