Audiographic Teleconferencing Project: An Evaluation

Stakeholders hopeful

In fact, ten people (or 43% of respondents) specifically described the technology as interfering with their learning in some way besides timing or pace. Comments included, "very distracting," "Some of the slides were difficult to read." "The medium interfered to some extent with the message." "I Found the content very difficult to focus on delivered this way." The quality of sound was poor and the conVersations were hard to follow or sometimes not heard." "I found the presenter hard to understand most of the time." "Once we lost the teacher, [and] because of static, it was very difficult to come back." As with the October sessions, a number of people again drew attention to the time wasted and the slow pace. Nevertheless, despite these comments and others mentioning ongoing frustration with the technology, no one suggested disposing of it. The impression conveyed is that many participants see potential or value in the technology and are still hopeful that the "glitches" can be resolved.

Suggestions for improving the technology included:

• Seems to go smoother without everyone trying to use the telewriter.
• More microphones (I per person).
• Better planning and communication [Improved quality of slides, equipment tested before session, users given practice time before session]
• A well done video that a group could use more than once might serve the purpose just as well.
• Limiting participants at a location to two to six would help to stimulate discussion "without allowing participants to duck using and becoming comfortable with the microphones, etc."
• Limiting locations on line which "creates timidity, intensified by the fact that there are other locations waiting to have their say and, suddenly, our comment or question does not seem important enough to intrude."