The VTC Classroom Experience:

Georgetown University’s Classroom on Two Campuses

Abstract

Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar held a joint undergraduate class via video teleconferencing between its Main Campus (Washington D.C., USA) and Qatar Campus (Doha, QATAR) during the spring of 2007. The class was Government 121 taught by Dr. Charles King from Main Campus with six students from the U.S. in his "local class", and 25 students in his video-conferenced "Qatar class".

Intro to SFS-Qatar

Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar (SFS-Qatar) first opened its doors in the fall of 2005, offering a four-year degree program in international affairs to students in Doha, Qatar. It is one of five universities in Education City, a campus that hosts branch sites of some of the world’s leading universities. SFS-Qatar currently enrolls more than one hundred students from more than a dozen nations around the world. The students who study at SFS-Qatar engage in an educational community that is as competitive and challenging as what is offered at the School of Foreign Service on Georgetown’s Main Campus, located in Washington, DC.

The distance between Main Campus and the Qatar Campus is huge, more than 11,000 kilometers (almost 7000 miles). This distance is bridged in a variety of ways – travel, email, phone, but by far the most convenient and cost-efficient is video teleconferencing. Most video teleconferencing equipment at Georgetown is used primarily for meetings and interviews, but in 2006 an idea was hatched to use this technology for a different purpose: delivering an undergraduate core course simultaneously to both campuses.

Objective

In early spring 2006, the SFS-Qatar administration began considering remote course delivery for Government 121 - Comparative Political Systems, popularly referred to as GOVT 121. A requirement for School of Foreign Service majors, GOVT 121 had not yet been offered in Qatar because of the limited number of faculty there. While the size of the faculty at SFS-Qatar is impressive in its ratio of faculty to student (roughly 1:4 at the time the course took place), it is a much smaller campus than in Washington DC, and therefore cannot offer the full range of courses available at Main Campus. The plan was to create a “distance” course, one that offered GOVT 121 in the US to Qatar students via remote technology.

There was also a hope that if this first class experiment in distance learning worked well, students in Doha could “sit in” on other classes given on Main Campus on a regular basis, offering a wider range of course options to SFS-Qatar students.

The primary concern in this project was that a “distance-learning class” could diminish the caliber of education compared to typical courses offered by Georgetown University, in essence creating a course lacking real professor-student interaction. It was imperative that the method of delivery should not in any way decrease the quality of the course. Toward this end, the original plan was enhanced with two decisions: 1) include students on the Main Campus lecture, and 2) hold classes for both locations in a classroom setting instead of a conference room. These changes were vital in making GOVT 121 feel more like a university course and less like a video teleconferenced lecture event.

The course was taught from Washington, DC by Professor Charles King, a well-know and popular professor at Georgetown. A total of thirty-one students attended the class, six in Washington DC and twenty-five in Doha.

Class was delivered in lecture format; quizzes and exams were given live and concurrently to both groups. Office hours were available to students in both countries; for students in Qatar this was done using video teleconferencing. The US students and Professor King also visited Doha during the Main Campus Spring Break (March 3-10), in order to hold joint class sessions and for the students to present group projects in person.

Learner Demographics

GOVT 121 had two sets of students taking the class. Although different in family background and life experiences, both sides of the class were admitted to Georgetown under the same admissions requirements and were at comparable academic levels. This pairing of intellectual maturity and academic careers contributed to unifying the two components of the class. Decidedly different groups in education level might have led to the “us vs. them” mentality, which can easily occur in video teleconferencing.

In Qatar, the twenty-five students attending the class were all sophomores majoring in International Studies. Just under half of the students were citizens of Qatar, the remainder expatriates from more than a dozen countries, extending from the Mediterranean to Southeast Asia.

In Washington DC, there were a total of six students (also sophomores), three from Georgetown College (Georgetown’s liberal arts school) and three from the School of Foreign Service. These students were selected by the Deans of their schools after submitting a transcript and essay (describing why they wanted to apply for the course). They also had to agree to spend their Spring Break attending class in Qatar with their classmates.

Technologies Used

To make this distance learning plan a success it was necessary to have facilities at each end which enhanced the classroom setting and built a feeling of togetherness among the students. To accomplish this we had to analyze and rework the rooms which were assigned for the classes in each location.

SFS-Qatar was fortunate to have access to a classroom in Education City that was designed for video teleconferencing; however, it took some re-engineering to make it fit our criteria for the best distance learning experience.

The original room configuration was a tiered 120-seat lecture hall, with three Sony video cameras, a Polycom Ipower 9000 unit for video teleconferencing, and a Creston panel for electronic management of the classroom. Push-to-talk microphones were installed one for every three seats in the class, and electrical and Ethernet outlets were provided on the desk surfaces.

The sound system in this room was one of the major obstacles to a good classroom feel. The push-to-talk microphones made a short buzz each time they were pressed to allow a participant to speak. The microphones also produced a “galloping” sound when near an active cell phone, and could occasionally get “stuck” open - causing feedback when any student tried to talk. Participants also had to remember to press the mike when speaking from the Doha classroom, in order for Washington DC to hear. This setup hindered the academic environment by adding an element of formality to the class; the professor could not “hear” the classroom as a whole, and spontaneous questions or comments from students were limited.

These sound problems will hopefully be resolved in spring 2008 when both sides of the classroom will be using embedded ceiling microphones. For the best classroom experience, ceiling microphones are much preferred to the push-to-talk style of microphone.

The next area needing improvement was the video feel of the room. The original room was outfitted with a large main console at the front of the classroom for teaching, and a total of four 127 cm (50 inch) plasma monitors. Two monitors faced outward from the base of the teaching console, one monitor directly behind and above the console, and the fourth monitor mounted on the first row of tiered seats, facing the instructor, allowing him or her to see what was being displayed on the other three screens. Almost three meters (ten feet) above the console was a massive projection screen. However, when the room was darkened to view the screen in Doha, the Washington DC class was unable see the faces of anyone in the Doha facility. The solution for this particular problem was to use the three plasmas screens at the front of the class, which were viewable in any lighting.

A final issue for this classroom was viewing all the students attending class. Since there were twenty-five students attending class from Doha, the video camera shots were aimed at only one-half of the lecture hall in order to get a closer view of the students seated there. This allowed the US participants and professor to see the students all in one camera shot and with relative clarity. Despite this close-up, the Doha students weren’t always clearly visible by Washington DC. As a solution, assigned seating was established, with name plates designating where the students should sit. This seating was particularly important in guaranteeing the students didn’t move off screen or be hidden by the picture-in-picture shown in the US. These changes made the Doha site much more in line with the feeling we wanted in this teaching situation.

On Main Campus, the classroom selected was originally designed as a “Film Screening Room”, which featured digital and 16 mm projection equipment, a Polycom VS4000, soundproofing, and sixty-seven theatre seats with fold-out desktops. We were not permitted to make any permanent changes to the room, so all adaptations for the course had to be non-invasive. Creative re-engineering of this room was also required to assure the students and professor could effectively interact with the Doha class.

The main challenge in this room was providing a way for both the students and professor to see the Doha participants. The solution was the purchase of two 106.68 cm (42 inch) LCD monitors: one monitor set up below the teaching lectern for the US students to see their peers in Qatar, and one monitor placed at the back of the room for the professor to see the same. Therefore, the US students were facing the professor teaching from the lectern, with a monitor of the Qatar class directly below it, and the professor was facing the US students, with the monitor of Qatar students directly behind them. The monitors were mounted on casters, so they could easily be moved into a side closet when class concluded. Each monitor was connected to the Polycom VS4000 system: the front monitor was outfitted with a wireless connection, while the back room monitor was plugged in directly.

The Film Screening Room contained three wall-mounted cameras, of which we used two: one focused on the US student participants, and the other focused on the professor. However, since the Polycom VS4000 system could not transmit both video feeds simultaneously, we had a production manager use an AMX control panel to transmit the camera shot of the professor for the lecture part of the class, and switch the shot to the preset student camera when a local student asked a question. In this way the class in Qatar would see the professor on the monitor while he was speaking, but when a US student spoke, they would be seen on the monitor instead. Both the professor’s and students’ voices were captured via embedded ceiling microphones in the room.

Testing showed that the lighting had to be improved as well. With the original lighting, students on the Doha side could not see the professor or students in Washington DC very well. To augment the lighting, we added two 650 k Lowel Omni adjustable flood lights, placed at the right front and the back left of the classroom. These lights were set up prior to each class period and stored in the side room when class was not in session. While these lights helped, it was still hard for Doha students to see Professor King. The background behind the professor consisted of a dark red velvet curtain and a chalkboard. We tried variations of these backgrounds along with several other colors of background, without much success. Finally we settled on pulling the curtain partway back, creating a diagonal drape behind the podium. It was suggested that Professor King wear subtle hues and avoid intensely colored clothing when on camera, but we found that of primary importance were lighting and background, not clothing color or pattern.

Now both classes were outfitted for a good video classroom experience, but there were still several decisions to be made. How would we handle a failure in the technology? What was the best time for the class to meet? What level of technical support was needed for each class?

For the first question, two backup strategies were enacted. An alternate location for each class was reserved, in the hopes that if the room was not usable, we could quickly relocate the class to a secondary site with similar equipment. Each class on the US side was also recorded to DVD, providing a copy for students in Doha if the connection was lost.

The class meeting time was established jointly by the University Registrar in Washington DC and the SFS-Qatar Assistant Dean. Qatar has a Sunday to Thursday work week and during the winter it is eight hours ahead of Washington DC. Therefore, the class was held Mondays and Wednesdays from 4:45 to 6:05 pm in Doha (8:45 to 10:05 am in Washington, DC). On March 11, the time was adjusted in Qatar to 3:30 pm when the US switched to Daylight Savings Time - reducing the time difference to seven hours.

Each class session had two or three staff support members on either end to manage the following items: lighting and monitor setup, VC connection and troubleshooting, camera production coordination, sound support, class recording and general logistics. Also in the Doha class was Shervin Malekzadeh, the teaching assistant, who managed class discussions in Doha, as well as collecting and distributing class materials and exams.

A difference in the academic calendars between the campuses allowed for the US students and the professor to visit Qatar during Main Campus Spring Break, while SFS-Qatar was still in session. For a week, Professor King taught class with both sections together, to allow personal classroom interaction and for the students to present their group projects.

Each group for the projects included students from both Doha and Washington DC, so actually being in the same room to work on projects was an important aspect of class. Not only did they study together, but the class was able to attend social events as a whole unit, removing the divide that video teleconferencing often erects between the two connection points.

Keys to Success

The primary success factor was the tireless effort and support of the administration and faculty and their willingness to see the project through to completion. Many different departments were active in support on both sides of the classroom, and the technical and pedagogical issues were constantly being reviewed to produce the best final product in the experimental class.

Secondly, vital to the success of the project was the reliability of the internet connection. We used a 155.52 Mbps STM1 Internet2 connection, shared with all of Education City. The connection failed only once, briefly, during the entire semester of class. If the connection had dropped for several class sessions, it would have been difficult to stay on track, since we had limited number of class days in the schedule. Class was entirely cancelled on only one occasion, during a white blustery day when the Washington DC authorities announced that schools would be closed due to snow. The Doha students delighted in telling their friends and families that their class had been cancelled because of a “snow day”.

Another reason for the experiment’s success was Professor King’s willingness to participate in a battery of tests in the semester leading up to the class. He added valuable input from his experience as a professor and lecturer. He also adapted to the new class setup, restricting his movements to stay inside the camera shot, and monitoring both sets of students for questions or difficulties. We came to recognize that the instructor is the one who can make or break a project such as this.

Tips for Similar Projects

In any video teleconferencing experience the fundamental obstacle is the mentality of “us vs. them”. In video conferenced meetings one occasionally sees the rolled eyes at a comment, or a glance between same-side participants.

Video teleconferencing connects two different environments, most likely two different time zones, and two different groups of people who commonly work together. Camaraderie is naturally formed between those on each side of the video camera. The tension in this arena needs to be broken down for effective communication. One way to accomplish this is with the use of Telepresence technology where it is not so easy to get by with a whispered remark or a knowing glance.

Despite technological improvements, it is essential to work continually to unite the two participating sides, particularly in a classroom setting. Reinforcing the collective “we”, keeping the class size small and referring to all participants by name; these are all things one can do to minimize the gap between the two connected sides of video teleconferencing.

Another essential factor in a project such as this is to allow sufficient time for testing and refining the setup. In our case, two test lectures were initially proposed in order to see how a class might work. Immediately after the first test lecture it was decided that the project needed weekly tests for the remaining three months to sort out all the variables for the class.

Conclusion

In the end, the project involved more than twenty people and took more than four months to plan and implement. It was considered a success by the SFS-Qatar administration and Main Campus, and as a result, plans are being made for another video teleconferenced class in the spring of 2008. For this future class we are planning to use Telepresence technology, which will further enhance the classroom experience we developed in this first event.

The success of this first distance learning experience has set the stage for ongoing improvement in our relationship between our Georgetown students around the world.





The GOVT 121 project involved not only Professor King and Shervin Malekzadeh, but also Barry Catelinet, Madelon Brennan, and Mike McHarg from University Information Services, John Steitz from Classroom Educational Technology Services, James Reardon-Anderson, Dean of SFS-Qatar, Scott Handley, Assistant Dean of SFS-Qatar, John Q. Pierce, University Registrar, Theresa Meyers, Associate University Registrar, Karen Souryal, Senior Administrator for SFS-Qatar in DC, Daad Pierce, Office Manager for SFS-Qatar in DC, Brendan Hill, Director of SFS-Qatar Student Affairs, Mollie Logue, SFS-Qatar Student Affairs Advisor, and CNDLS. Many thanks to all and their dedication to quality higher education.