A Comparative Analysis of Instructor-Led Synchronous Systems

 

 

 

Introduction

 

            The purpose of this paper is to review and compare four instructor-led synchronous Web conferencing systems.  I participated in live demonstrations of HorizonLive (10/27/06), Elluminate (10/24/06), Breeze (10/15/06), and Aspen Conferencing (10/17/06).  The paper will also discuss why, in spite of seemingly subtle differences among the systems, HorizonLive is the best for educational purposes.

 

General Aspects

           

            HorizonLive is designed primarily for educational use, offering a virtual classroom with live sessions and static content.  It can also be used by educational institutions for live Web meetings and continuing education seminars.  Elluminate and Breeze’s basic products appear to primarily target corporate markets, offering session-based online training and Web conferencing adaptable for educational use.  Aspen targets the legal professional market, offering session-based Web conferencing.  While not designed for education, Aspen markets Web conferencing as an opportunity for law firms to offer continuing professional education.

 

Technical View

 

All systems pretty much have comparable technical features.  They all are accessible to individuals with disabilities.  They offer application sharing, file transfer, interactive whiteboard, public and private chat, recording of live sessions, polling of participants and tallying of results, presentation of content in various formats (Word, Excel, etc.), and integration with other systems.  All except Aspen offer breakout/meeting rooms.

All systems except Aspen offer VOIP with “single-click” talking capabilities.  The VOIP audio quality overall was good except that there was brief interruption during application sharing.  During the Breeze and Elluminate demonstrations, the instructor’s voice occasionally faded in and out. 

Aspen Web conferencing requires participants to use the telephone for voice communication while using the desktop for all other applications.  Use of the telephone meant that there were no audio interruptions during application sharing.  The other three systems allow voice participation by telephone if VOIP is not feasible. 

HorizonLive and Elluminate boast seamless integration with learning management systems such as WebCT/Blackboard.  Aspen does not interface with learning management systems but can interface with Microsoft Outlook for ease of scheduling synchronous sessions. 

            While all systems require only low bandwith and are PC and Mac compatible, ease of access differs somewhat among them.  HorizonLive requires only a quick set-up wizard.  Breeze requires certain Macromedia Flash downloads.  Elluminate requires installation of Java Web Start.  Accessing Aspen was quite cumbersome, requiring a download of special software that took several minutes. 

Once in the systems, all had pretty much equal ease of use.  However, Aspen was somewhat awkward because of the extra required tool, the telephone.  Aspen was the only system that crashed (twice) during the demonstration.  Access was quickly restored and the telephone connection survived the crashes. 

Pedagogical View

 

            All systems pretty much equally support the important pedagogical concepts mentioned by Luck and Laurence (2005) of prompt feedback, active learning, and diverse methods of learning.  Synchronous interaction in all systems between instructor and learner and among learners allows participants immediate feedback on their work and participation.  Shared files and applications and interactive whiteboards facilitate active learning.  Participants can create, manipulate, and mark-up content either individually or collaboratively.  With images/content on the desktop and voice, all systems can accommodate both auditory and visual learners. 

            Furthermore, the systems equally support the important dual role of technology in distance education underscored by Kurtz & Friedman (1999).  First, each allows the use of tools that effectively replace the tools of the traditional brick-and-mortar classroom.  The systems’ application and file sharing in a variety of formats and the collaborative whiteboard are examples of powerful audio-visual tools that support the distance education environment.  Second, the systems’ synchronous interaction facilitates the vital connection between instructors and learners who are separated by time and place.

            In fact, according to Wisher and Curnow (1999) the use of audio plus images such as that which takes place using synchronous Web systems has been shown to be as effective as the brick-and-mortar classroom for some learning processes.  The four systems’ combination of instructor’s voice and the image/content facilitates what the authors state is the most important type of interaction.

            During synchronous sessions, the systems offer fairly equal possibilities for interaction with instructor, other learners, and content.   All systems permit voice and text chat.  Text chat can be public for all participants to see or private, between instructor and participant or between/among certain participants.  Instructor and participants can also interact with each other by collaborating on the whiteboard and by annotating shared files and applications.  All systems except Aspen allow break-out rooms.  This feature allows for small-group collaboration and then permits the small groups to rejoin the large group for report-outs and large-group collaboration.

All systems permit interaction with content via the whiteboard and application and file sharing.  In addition, participants can further interact with content when accessing recorded sessions.  HorizonLive is unique in that it stores all recorded content and sessions in one classroom thereby allowing learners continuous, easy access to cumulative content pertaining to the course.  With other systems’ basic products, learners can access recorded sessions/content only via isolated session links.

            The role of the instructor is pretty much the same in all systems.  All can set up live meetings and decide whether to record them.  Instructors serve as session moderators and can pass/revoke control to participants of applications such as the whiteboard and can give/revoke permission to speak.  Passing and revocation of control was seamless in all except the Breeze demonstration.  Instructors are also able to block private chat among participants thus preventing the equivalent of talking in the back of the brick-and-mortar classroom.  Instructors can also monitor learners’ participation in Breeze by being able to see that a typed chat response is in progress and in HorizonLive and Elluminate by viewing participants’ Internet connection/speeds.  In all the systems, the instructor can speak to learners to keep them focused while working on a particular application.

 

Summary:  Which System is the Best?

 

Although there are only subtle technological and pedagogical differences among the systems, HorizonLive is best suited for education.  The reason HorizonLive is best is because the basic product offers a static classroom for learners to visit and revisit.  Instead of merely helping build community among learners via live sessions, HorizonLive allows a place for learners to build and sustain their community.  In the HorizonLive virtual classroom, learners can synchronously interact with each other and the instructor and can construct a community or extend one already created in the LMS classroom.  Session-based systems do not offer the opportunity to create or sustain such a community.

Furthermore the HorizonLive basic product allows learners the most effective interaction with content based upon content access after live sessions.  Learners can interact with cumulative content and recorded sessions that are stored together in one virtual classroom.  When studying for an exam, learners need to go to only one place to access all activities and content generated and shared via HorizonLive.  On the contrary, the other systems’ basic products allow interaction with only isolated bits of content in separately recorded sessions that are not necessarily stored together in one convenient place.    

Finally, HorizonLive’s ease of access and ease of use are the icing on the cake.  No special downloads are required and the system is easily navigable.    

 

References

Aspen Conferencing.  Available at http://www.aspenconferencing.com/

Breeze.  Available at http://www.adobe.com/products/breeze/

Elluminate.  Available at http://www.elluminate.com/site/external/event/schedule

HorizonLive.  Available at http://www.horizonlive.com/try_product/live_demo.php

Kurtz, G. and Friedman, B. (1999).  A holistic, individual, technologically-mediated learning environment at the Open University of Israel.  A paper presented at the ICDE Conference, Vienna.

Luck, M. & Laurence, G.M.  Innovative Teaching:  Sharing Expertise through Videoconferencing.  Innovate 2(1).  Retrieved October 3, 2005, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=59.  

Reed, J. & Woodruff, M.  Videoconferencing -Using Compressed Video for Distance Learning. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/vidconf/Using.html

Wisher, R. A., & Curnow, C. K. (1999).  Perceptions and effects of image transmissions during Internet-based training. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 37-51.