Audiographic Teleconferencing Project: An Evaluation
When asked if they had any additional comments, many tutor-learners reinforced the responses they had given earlier. -Three said the audiographic teleconferencing medium does not fit their style, partly because they prefer face-to-face courses. Another preferred video-conferencing because "visual is better than just hearing."
Several tutor-learners reiterated the need to "get the bugs out" of the technology. And others identified the components they liked best; for example, the content or the film. Two described the personal interaction - "the anecdotal information from other participants" -as the most valuable feature of this technology. One suggested, rather than providing handouts that are a repeat of the information on the screen, that supplementary or additional reading material be made available. With this, the audio visual material on the monitor could then be presented as graphics.
Coordinators likewise made some additional comments about the Project, again mostly reiterating what had been said before. "Practice should occur before the session starts, otherwise time is wasted." However, two people made a point of commending the Project Coordinator for her efforts- "Meredith is to be commended for coming up with this idea and executing it." - and her willingness to address all problems or issues.
| Objective #2. | To assess the development of the tutor training modules being used with the Audio-Graphic Teleconferencing technology |
Both coordinators and tutor-learners were asked, How much of a say did you have in the development of the training modules? Coordinators' responses covered a range from "a great deal" to "none at all", with three falling in the latter category. About half of the respondents remembered being asked to choose from a list of possible topics or offer ideas. They believed that all or most of their ideas or suggestions had been included in the modules.
Tutor-learners expressed some confusion about the question. Nevertheless, a number referred to input they gave input through a questionnaire developed by Robin Millar at the University of Manitoba asking participants to identify their choices of content for the January sessions. When asked to what extent their input was used, one responded "a great deal" and four said to some extent. One did not know. Respondents who did not attend these sessions did not see themselves as having given any input.
All six coordinators and both instructors thought that the modules had met the learners' needs. One coordinator elaborated, "The frustration of dealing with the technology interfered, but they enjoyed the content. They found the content interesting and of value." Another pointed out that, in some cases the material was a repeat. A third commented that the left brain right brain information was too slow paced, and more information could have covered. The coordinators' and instructors' observations were borne out by the tutor-learners, seven of whom said the modules had met their needs. One responded, "somewhat."