2010 adobe connect trial – final report project team · text box, and then having to get your...

Macquarie University Emerging Technologies Grant Final Report Feb 2011

1

2010 Adobe Connect Trial – Final Report

Project Team

Dr. Matt Bower

Dr. Ming Ming Diao

James Hamilton

Dean Groom

Steering Committee Reference: A/Prof. Maree Gosper

This final report summarises the findings derived from the Adobe Connect Trial that occurred during Semester 1 and Semester 2 of 2010 at Macquarie University. This trial was funded by a

MQ Emerging Technologies Grant awarded on 14th December 2009.


2

1. The technology Adobe Connect is a web-conferencing system that provides a range of facilities through any Flash enabled web-browser, including ‘General Presentation Delivery’, ‘Webcam’, ‘VoIP’, ‘Text Chat’, ‘Whiteboard’, ‘File Upload/Download’, ‘Polling’, ‘Attendee List’, ‘Web Launcher’, ‘Notepad’ and ‘Screen Sharing’. The meeting ‘host’ (or super-user) can spontaneously adjust the access control of ‘presenters’ and ‘participants’ to each of the tools. Each of these tools (or ‘pods’) can be instantly resized, drag-and-dropped, created or deleted. As well, a room can have several pre-designed layouts, which can be navigated between at the click of a tab. Up to five breakout rooms can be created based on one of the layouts in the meeting, allowing groupwork collaboration on tasks. Finally, all sessions have the capacity to be recorded. 2. The Teaching and Learning Context Adobe Connect was used by 27 academics and approximately 1300 students from across 12 Departments in the University. Eleven academics and ninety-four students have already submitted feedback for this draft report, providing information about a subset of the trial participants. Of the 11 units from which feedback has been received, 5 were from education with the remaining 6 units from law, statistics, international studies, policing, intelligence and counter terrorism, international communication, and marketing. The number of students enrolled in each of the units were 25, 20, 12, 22, 36, 16, 12, 10, 8, 100, and 45. Unit convenors used Adobe Connect to provide external students with real time and interactive access to lecturer and student presentations and to facilitate discussions; as well as to provide recordings for archival access. Except for two units, which were offered exclusively to off-shore students, all other units offered enrolment to both internal and external students. The structure of the units in which Adobe Connect was being used varied widely, to individual face-to-face consultation, to incidental small group discussion sessions, to optional 2 hour weekly discussion groups to weekly 3 hour classes. Participants opted into the trial because they valued the ability to hold online synchronous meetings with students, the ability to communicate using a variety of modalities (for instance audio, PowerPoint and pictures) and the ability to record sessions. Three units planned to use Adobe Connect for assessment purposes. In all the three instances it was anticipated that students would be required to give presentations using Adobe Connect. 3. The Capability of the Technology The results below outline responses from the 115 participants including 14 academics and 101 students who completed the survey. The survey can be regarded as a viewport into participants’ perceptions of learning and teaching with Adobe Connect, from which both qualitative and quantitative insights can be drawn.

3.1. Learningandteachingprocesses

3.1.1. Extenttowhichthetechnologysupportedpre‐identifiedteachingandlearningprocesses/activities

Academics felt Adobe Connect was effective in supporting learning and teaching All academics (100%) found Adobe Connect to be “very effective” (66.7%) or “effective” (33.3%) in supporting teaching and learning activities. No academics thought it was ineffective.


3

Students felt Adobe Connect improved access to learning and teaching Of the 101 students, 95 (94.0%) “strongly agreed”, “agreed” or “mildly agreed” that Adobe Connect was able to improve access to learning and teaching. In contrast only 4 students (4.0%) who rated it as “neutral” and 2 students (2.0%) disagreed with this statement (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Student rating of Adobe Connect in improving access to learning and teaching

Students felt Adobe Connect increased the level of interactivity Of 101 students, 92 (91.1%) “strongly agreed”, “agreed” or “mildly agreed” that Adobe Connect was able to improve the level of interactivity, in contrast to 9 students (8.9%) who rated it as “neutral”. None of students disagreed with this statement, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Student rating of Adobe Connect in improving the level of interactivity


4

Student would be more likely to choose units that used Adobe Connect Of 101 students, 80 (79.2%) “strongly agreed”, “agreed” or “mildly agreed” that they would be more likely to choose units where Adobe Connect was being used, in contrast to 16 students (15.8%) who rated it as “neutral” and 5 students (5.0%) “mildly disagreed”, “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with this statement (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: Student rating about if they would be more likely to choose units where Adobe Connect was being used

Adobe Connect supported a range of pedagogical practices that otherwise could not have occurred:

• Access to participation in tutorials • Remote presentations by lecturers (interactive teacher centred modes) • Remote presentations by students to peers and lecturer (peer learning activities) • Class discussions involving internal and external students (multimodal learning) • Peer assisted learning sessions • Exam revision for external • Self-access learning using archived presentations, materials and activities (multimodal,

flexible learning).

To not have web-conferencing at the University restricts the remote pedagogies that can be applied.

3.1.2. Strengthsandweaknessesofthesystem

Both academics and students were asked the strengths and weaknesses (or difficulties/challenges did they face) of Adobe Connect. Academics thought the most obvious strength of using Adobe Connect was that this system could provide external and internal students an equal opportunity to attend lectures or tutorials, for example:

• Adobe allows students to join in seminars when they can’t come to campus (e.g. the students from overseas or outside the Sydney metropolitan area)…

• For internal students it offers flexibility - most are juggling family work and study so having the Adobe options is vital to their capacity to engage.


5

• From a teaching perspective it allows me to design the unit for one cohort rather than having different activities for internal and external. The best example of this is seminar presentations.... they can do it in person or do it online. It is very empowering.

Students provided similar comments about the strengths of using Adobe Connect, for example:

• It gave me as an external student an opportunity outside of the one on-campus session to actually have contact with others and to actually get a comparison with others.

• It was great being to access the class from home. I really appreciated being able to mix up the face-to-face sessions and the online sessions.

• So convenient - no travel to lectures… As a distance student, I get to hear my lecturer and fellow students, which re-introduces the communication/collaboration of a face to face classroom. I absolutely love this initiative and think all tertiary distance programs should use it.

Regarding the weaknesses of using Adobe Connect and the difficulties or challenges did participants face, both academic and students thought “sound” was the main issue of using this system while many of them did not have any challenges or difficulties, for example, some lecturers and students commented:

• Connectivity may sometimes be a problem. In my sessions, the first thing to go when there were connectivity problems was the sound… Also, depending on time of day, sessions may go more or less smoothly. Afternoons seem to be better than evenings (when everybody is at home logging on and networks get saturated more easily). – from a lecturer

• Sound can be an issue, perhaps [need] a head microphone – from a student • The sound was a problem, dropping in and out. – from a student • It is hard to set up audio equipment (e.g. microphone) in this system until I restart my computer. –

from a student

Apart from sound, the Internet connection (particularly students’ Internet speed) is another issue or challenge of using Adobe Connect. Some students reported:

• Internet service dropout • My internet broke down on one occasion. I can’t solve this problem as it is the only internet

connection I can get where I live. The recorded lectures solve the problem of missing parts of a lecture because of a dodgy internet connection.

With regards to video, one lecture stated that using webcam was problematic and the other one thought video quality were okay for current students but not of a standard where recordings could be re-used. Besides, one lecturer pointed out that Adobe Connect could not share video files (e.g. DVD) or streaming online video (e.g. YouTube). As one lecturer suggested in the survey that using Adobe Connect requires a relatively higher or better technical environment in which “technology is embedded has to be robust and compatible”. Adobe Connect users are expected to have a proper computer, better quality headset and webcam as well as high speed Internet connection.

3.1.3. Issuesencountered/potentialissuesarisinginothercontextsFor our teachers to facilitate successful web-conferencing sessions they need to possess both technological and pedagogical capabilities (highlighting the critical role of professional development to be able to use the web-conferencing system effectively). With the help of academic support staff, teachers were able to gradually develop these skills and provide recommendations for learning and teaching. The majority of teaching tips and advice related either to technical problems on one hand and blending delivery of face-to-face and online students on the other. Technology-related advice mainly addresses managing technological problems, such as having a back-up plan in case problems occur or being flexible with starting


6

and finishing times until all participants are sufficiently familiar with technology. One respondent suggested:

• To use this effectively you need to make time to learn how to use the technology and to experience it in real-time as a facilitator and a participator…

• Teaching is very different and requires different skills. There is more multitasking involved - managing the technology, facilitating student interaction with the microphone and also watching the text box, and then having to get your message across in a competent manner.

With respect to combining face-to-face classroom delivery with online participation, survey respondents suggested:

• Takes a little bit of time to coordinate activity in the web-conferencing system and in the face-to-face classroom. Strategies include reading out student comments from home and letting people at home know the results of votes held in class. Teachers should also repeat questions asked in class so that students at home can hear.

• Spend time on planning the interactions in the blended session. For instance, talking for too long is not good so session about content needs to be succinct (mini-lectures). Class discussions need to be planned and online participants informed that they should discuss between themselves or do the work privately.

3.2. StaffAcceptance/usabilityStaff were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with Adobe Connect (from “highly satisfactory” to “highly unsatisfactory” and add comments where appropriate. A summary of the Likert scale responses are provided in Figure 4 below. Responses indicated that generally staff were highly satisfied with the trial. Overall, Adobe Connect was rated predominantly “highly satisfactory” in each of the areas of access (86.7%), ease of use (50.0%), reliability (53.3%) and screen layout (60.0%). In the area of speed and connectivity that was rated predominantly “satisfactory” (53.3%).

Figure 4 – Staff overall satisfaction with Adobe Connect

Comments from participants include:


7

• My colleague had I initially experienced difficulties with using this - our first seminar we tried to

broadcast was unsuccessful. But we sorted out the technical issues (with help from Martin and Ming Ming), and then it worked an absolute treat. Our seminar was attended by people in Hong Kong, Mexico, Chile and Argentina.

• Adobe Connect has performed extremely well this semester. I particularly appreciate the ability to change the design of the interface to meet the collaborative and communicative needs of the learning episode.

However, reliability and screen layout received “unsatisfactory” ratings from 13.3% of respondents. One academic found that number of student they were teaching to be a challenge with the biggest tutorial having 18 in the room and 8 online. Another academic reported difficulties with microphone connections and sound generally. Although there were some audio problems during the trial, when academics were asked would they use Adobe Connect again for similar teaching and learning purposes, all of them chose “yes”. Some academic noted:

• Students deeply appreciated the access, interactivity, and recording facilities provided by Adobe Connect. I think this was a vast improvement to the learning and teaching process and would be very disappointed if it were not continued

• I would like to try and use it for more specifically structured components of the class. It is my intention to look at the types of activities that could be developed to aid learning in the unit.

3.2.1. EaseofuseStaff were also asked to identify which features of Adobe Connect they used, to rate their level of satisfaction (“highly satisfactory” to “highly unsatisfactory”) and to provide explanatory comments, where appropriate. A summary of the Likert scale responses are provided in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Staff rating of features of Connect

From the figure it can be seen that the highest rated functions of Adobe Connect were “File Sharing”, “Screen Sharing”, “Chat”, Whiteboard” and “Note pods”. Although not used by all trial participants, they uniformly received “highly satisfactory” and “satisfactory” ratings, except 3 respondents rated “Discussion (audio)” unsatisfactory or highly unsatisfactory and 1 respondent rated “Break-out Rooms” unsatisfactory. Thus while there were problems


8

experienced with some of the multimedia elements of the system, there was general approval of the tools.

3.2.2. Requirementsfortrainingandsupport

Overall staff were satisfied with the training and support provide for the Adobe Connect Trial.

Figure 6: Participants rating of training and support

Most participants had received training sessions (including initial face-to-face, online training sessions and general workshops) provided at the beginning of the trial, as well as the ongoing technical and pedagogical support during the semester. Comments showed an appreciation for the support and coaching received, for example:

• I could not have been provided with a better level of support. Having training is great before you start because you see it all working and get to try things. Having someone (Ming Ming) come to the classroom to check set-up built confidence.

However, it appears that not all trial participants had attended training sessions provided at the beginning of the trial. At least one participant indicated:

• I was unable to attend the sessions, and did receive initial "training" just before the workshops. This was not satisfactory, because I like to greet students as they arrive, rather than being too busy for them.

Some participants also noted that no amount of training could provide to students, for example:

• I wasn't aware of support issues with students so either they didn't have any or they were satisfactorily resolved. I should also add that students often help each other which is a highly desirable state.

The Adobe Connect web-conferencing system requires considerable time-per-user to support (both in terms of providing training and troubleshoot help), and if the system were to be


9

implemented across the university then adequate funds would need to be allocated to providing such support.

3.2.3. Potentialtoaddefficiencies,reduceorincreaseworkloadOn the whole respondents indicated that the ongoing workload was “manageable”. No category received an “unmanageable” or “highly unmanageable”, as show in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Participants rating of ongoing workload

One participant indicated that “it is time-consuming to load the materials - just as it is when loading them to Blackboard. However, it is useful to be able to present them in this way”. The fact that the workload associated with teaching online was generally perceived as manageable is reassuring in terms of encouraging staff to experiment with web-conference based teaching.

3.3. StudentAcceptance/usabilityResponses to the student online feedback survey indicated that they were generally satisfied with the trial (see Figure 8). Overall, Adobe Connect was rated predominantly “highly satisfactory” in the areas of access (57.0%) and ease of use (50.5%), and “satisfactory” in the areas of reliability (48.5%), speed and connectivity (62.0%) and screen layout (46.5%). Some respondents stated:

• Little confusing on first use but became easier as familiarity increased. • I thought it was awesome and wish other lecturers could use it. Unfortunately, I was never able to

connect during lectures while at uni. My computer said I was connected at uni but I could never get far enough to connect to the lecture. I was very disappointed with that - assuming it was a wireless connection and nothing to do with Adobe Connect.

For the minority of students who experienced performance issues, internet (wireless) access and reliability were the key issues.


10

Figure 8 – Student overall satisfaction with Adobe Connect

3.3.1. EaseofuseFrom Figure 9 it can be seen that there was general student satisfactory with the tools. Each tool was used by at least half of all respondents. The highest rate of all functions of Adobe Connect were “highly satisfactory” and “satisfactory”, while each of the functions have received small proportion (1.2% - 8.9%) of “unsatisfactory” or “highly unsatisfactory” rating.

Figure 9 – Student rating of features of Connect


11

3.4. Hardware/softwareAdobe Connect operates on a web-based client-server architecture. Users can access the system as long as they have a web-browser and are connected to the Internet. If users are running an old version of the Adobe Flash Player they may be required to update to the latest version. On first time use users may be prompted to download a plugin that takes approximately 20 seconds to install. This enables some of the more powerful features of the system such as desktop sharing to operate. The requirements for the Adobe Connect Server machine are reasonably high end, but not excessive (see http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/systemreqs/ ). Note that it is also possible to purchase a hosted service which obviates the need to purchase and maintain a server. 4. Organisational impact

4.1. Studentandstaffsecurity,privacyandconfidentialityofcontentanduserinformation

There were no reported issues of student or staff security breaches. Each user has their own account on the Adobe Connect server and there is a sophisticated permissions system that can be used to allow or prevent access to conference rooms, recordings and resources.

4.2. Interoperability,integrationintoMQITinfrastructure,orotherlearningtechnologiesincludingBlackboard

Adobe Connect can authenticate via an LDAP server, allowing it to integrate directly with the existing Macquarie University user authentication system. As it is web-based a hyperlink to a web-conferencing room can be inserted in any document or web-page (including within Blackboard or Moodle). There are no limits to the amount of rooms that can be established by a user with permissions, meaning that one unit can potentially have several rooms. Adobe also provides documentation outlining how the system can also be integrated directly with LMSs (see http://www.adobe.com/education/elearning/pdfs/connect_lms_intgrtn_sb_ue.pdf ).

4.3. Accessibility–generalaccessandalsodisabilityAdobe Connect is able to adjust the amount of information that is streamed to users based on their bandwidth settings (either dial up modem, ADSL/cable, or LAN). However for an optimal experience it is recommended that users have at least ADSL/cable access to the Internet. The system allows contribution via text-chat, audio, webcam, whiteboard, screen-sharing, PowerPoint presentation, notepods, voting tools and file uploads. To this extent there are a range of modalities through which users can communicate. If a user has difficulty with listening or speaking then they have visual and textual modalities through which communication can be mediated. Similarly for students with poor literacy a non-textual modality such as audio of visual representation may be used. Because of the multi-modal nature of web-conferencing systems they generally provide a range of alternatives with which students can participate. Because the system is available online students can have synchronous access to lessons from their home or workplace. The fact that the system allows recording of all sessions means that users with accessibility issues can access the instruction at a later time and process it at a speed that suits them. Thus, through the range of modalities that the system offers, the ability to access rooms and resources from off-campus, and the ability to record all interactions that occur in the


12

environment, Adobe Connect offers greater accessibility than students currently experience in face-to-face lectures. For a full Section 508 accessibility report for Adobe Connect please see: http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/compliance/acrobatconnect_508.html

4.4. IPandcopyrightStudents and academics may choose to upload and broadcast copyright resources in their web-conferencing sessions. As such they need to be aware of copyright legislation and how to abide by it, just as if they were operating in a face-to-face environment. Users need to be particularly mindful of this in light of the recordings of the sessions that they may chose to make available. Academics concerned about Intellectual Property issues should be careful before they distribute resources via the system, in the same way that they would take care when making resources available via Blackboard. The fact that the information is in digital form makes it particularly simple to replicate and disseminate.

4.5. InformationManagementAdobe Connect comes complete with a resource management system, allowing users to upload, organise and share resources. Each user has an administration area for them to create and manage their meeting rooms. Meeting hosts can also access, edit and organise recordings of sessions. Within a room the resources that have been previously shared in a room are available from a drop-down menu (for easy retrieval). All text-chat areas, whiteboards and notepods can be cleared at the meeting hosts’ discretion. All transactions and contributions during the meeting can be retrieved from the recording.

4.6. UseforassessmentAdobe Connect can be used to facilitate remote assessment. For instance, students can be asked to deliver a PowerPoint presentation to the rest of the class. The effectiveness of this approach is dependent on the reliability of the system. In the capability analysis survey three academics planned to use Adobe Connect for assessment purposes. In all the three instances it was anticipated that students would be required to give presentations using Adobe Connect. One academic notes that it is great to use Adobe Connect to assess student presentation as the presentations will be captured and shared for those who cannot attend lectures or tutorials. It is necessary to provide students more opportunities to complete and submit their assignments by using Adobe Connect. 5. Sustainability and Cost The increased accessibility and interactivity afforded by Adobe Connect comes at a cost, not only in terms of software and hardware, but also in terms of pedagogical and technical support. Connect Pro Server Application: Note, the Connect Pro Server Application required to run Adobe Connect meetings has already been purchased ($8500). Acrobat Connect Pro Meeting: Approximately AUD$170 per Named Organiser license, approximately $309 per Concurrent User, and approximately A$21 per Seminar Room seat.


13

Named Organiser: Each individual Named Organizer has the ability to host a meeting with up to 100 total attendees. Named Organizers may create an unlimited number of meeting rooms, however, the Named Organizer can only use one of their rooms at any one time and rooms cannot be accessed unless the Named Organizer is present. Named Organizers must be individuals, not groups or generic logins, and a Named Organizer license cannot be shared between more than one individual. Concurrent User: A concurrent Connect Pro Meeting user has the ability to attend or host a meeting on the Connect Pro. Seminar Room: The room size is set based on number of seminar room seats purchased per room, only one meeting can take place in a seminar room at any given time, and a designated Seminar Room Host must be present in the room for the room to be accessed. Minimum purchase quantity of 200 concurrent seats per seminar room. Maximum of 1,500. All prices above are for a licensed version of Connect Pro. For external hosting Macquarie University would still purchase the software outright, but instead of our IT department hosting and managing the servers, a company like Webqem would. Webqem has suggested in the past that the hardware including installation would cost approximately $13,000 per server. Only one server would be required assuming the university does not exceed 350 concurrent users with the Connect pro software. If we wanted to separate the database and load balance, then three servers would be required. Webqem’s Bandwidth A standard package that most of their customers are on is A$900 per month which provides 5GB inbound, 40GB outbound per month. Maintenance & Support: Maintenance & Support is calculated at 20% of the total purchase price. Maintenance and Support is mandatory in the 1st year only however, maintaining your Maintenance and Support future proofs your investment and ensures you receive all minor and major updates including service packs, and 1st line technical support directly with Webqem. The above prices are indicative, in Australian Dollars, exclude GST, are subject to changes in the US dollar exchange rate. Webqem is happy to provide a formal quote once Macquarie provides a clear definition of business requirements.

5.1. Abilityforthetechnologytogrowtomeetpotentialfuturerequirements?Adobe Connect can service thousands of users simultaneously, however the infrastructure and license needs to be upgraded to support requirements. For this trial we used a 40 named organiser license which was sufficient to meet the needs of the university during the pilot program. Not everyone in the university (staff or students) is likely to want to use Adobe Connect as soon as it is offered, however the system can be scalable up to full campus deployment if required.

5.2. Likelycostsformaintenance,upgrades,training,supportThis is highly dependent on the number of users and will most likely change over time as demand for the system grows and institutional experience increases. Administering web-conferencing requires a minimum level of support in order to maintain adequate levels of teacher and student satisfaction. Any campus-wide implementation of the system needs to factor in the employment of ongoing staff member to manage the system, training and support. Depending on the level of demand for the system, this could range from 0.2 to 1.0 equivalent full time load.


14

5.3. CoststhatwillorarelikelytobeimposedonstudentsThe system would impose little or no cost on students other than the bandwidth and computing resources that would be required to access the system. Students who did not have earphones or a microphone for their computer would need to purchase these if they wished to contribute via audio.

5.4. FeasibilityforFaculties,theUniversityandstudents(incl.costs,upgrades,timeresourcesetc.)

Running this system is highly feasible, and contingent issues have been outlined above. Many other universities run some form of web-conferencing software for staff and students. Faculties and students can run off a centralised Macquarie University server configuration as easily as they can access the Internet. 6. Overall assessment of the technology

6.1. Potentialforsupportingotherlearningandteachingprocesses/contextsWeb-conferencing software such as Adobe Connect is the best technological solution available for supporting synchronous online teaching and learning. However it is also possible to run the software in other teaching and learning contexts, for instance:

• Support for higher degree research students • Within computer lab tutorial classes to allow multiuser text-chat contributions • Within computer lab tutorial classes to enable groups of students to draw diagrams

using the whiteboard-tool • Within a lecture to record the presentation and provide a text-chat back channel.

The system could also be used for non-academic purposes to provide remote technical support, facilitate collaboration between general staff, and so on.

6.2. Potentialforuseacrossotherdisciplines,facultiesoracrossthewholeuniversity

This trial was run across disciplines and Faculties. There is nothing to prohibit its use across the entire range of subject offerings at Macquarie.

6.3. SimilaroralternativeproductsonthemarketSimilar or alternative products include:

• Elluminate Live (http://www.elluminate.com/products/live/index.jsp) and Wimba Classroom (http://www.wimba.com/products/wimba_classroom) [merged]

• WebEx (http://www.webex.com.au) • Dim Dim (http://www.dimdim.com) • Big Blue Button (http://www.bigbluebutton.org)

Elluminate Live / Wimba Classroom and WebEx are the main competitors to Adobe Connect in the educational virtual classroom web-conferencing space. Recently open source (less full featured but nevertheless reasonable) alternatives have been entering the market, such as Dim Dim and Big Blue Button.


15

6.4. Assessmentofsuitabilityforfurtherinvestigation,restingorescalationofusewithyourFaculty/DepartmentoracrossMQ

As well as pedagogical and technical considerations there are a range of financial, institutional and other factors to consider when assessing whether or not to escalate the use of Adobe Connect across the university. Based on student and teacher feedback there is undoubtedly a strong pedagogical argument for extending the use of Adobe Connect at Macquarie University. While there were still some technical problems experienced this year, the performance of Adobe Connect was far better than in previous years, mainly due to the server and configuration deployed by the Learning and Teaching Centre (care of James Hamilton). Financially, web-conferencing is more costly (per user) than most other learning and teaching software systems, not only in terms of license fees but also in terms of support. However given the current drive across the University for more flexible learning delivery and for ways to address burgeoning learning and teaching spaces, web-conferencing appears to be both a vital technology for our contemporary learning and teaching program as well as a relative inexpensive means of alleviating pressure on face-to-face classroom spaces. Another consideration is whether to use Adobe Connect or an alternative web-conferencing system. Current trials being conducted at University of New South Wales should provide assistance in making this choice, however adoption of an alternative system would not be able to be implemented for first semester of next year. Further, given the roll-out of the new LMS in 2012, it would be unwise to implement an alternative web-conferencing system before that time because of the integration work that would be required. Thus, the recommendation of this trial is to continue using Adobe Connect to provide the University's web-conferencing services in 2011. A baseline budget to continue the Adobe Connect web-conferencing service for 2011 is provided below. Note that this schedule assumes that there will not be any advertising for new users in 2011. Rather the deployment will focus on retaining current corporate knowledge and experience, to optimise medium to longer-term return on investment. Any new users will only be accepted up to the level of remaining licenses. Any major projects involving Adobe Connect will be asked to fund equipment, licenses and support from their own accounts. 2011 Budgeted Staff Project Manager (Level 7 Step 1): $47.51 x 7 hours x 1 day x 42 weeks x 1.17 oncosts = $18,677.13 Other Maintenance on existing forty seats due in May 2011 $3945.00 Total $22622.13

The project manager is required one day per week to provide the ongoing pedagogical and technical support to users, and to provide a point of contact for the system. The maintenance for the existing forty seats is part of the ongoing expense required to keep our licenses current and activated.


16

7. Financial Reconciliation 2010 (Original Round of ETG) Budgeted Actual

Expenses Staff Project Manager (Level 7 Step 1): $46.55 x 7 hours x 2 days x 42 weeks x 1.17 oncosts = $32,024.54 $32,430.69 Other Additional seats on the Adobe Connect license ($185 x 20) $3,700.00 $3,750.00 Additional support costs to end May 2010 $309.00 $0.00 Support renewal from June 2010 $3,374.00 $3,618.35 Headsets for participants ($29.95 x 20) $592.46 $200.96 Total $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2010 (Special Round of ETG) Budgeted Actual

Expenses Staff Project Manager (Level 7 Step 1): Extra day / week: $46.58 x 7 hrs x 26 wks x 1.17 oncosts + Time in December: $46.58 x 7 hrs x 2 days x 9 wks x 1.17 oncosts

$16,785.57 $15,349.19

Other Additional Adobe Connect licenses ($169 x 10) $1,690.00 $1,690.00 Maintenance on additional ten licenses until end of May 2010 $327.81 $327.81 Headsets for participants ($35 x 10) $350.00 $141.45 Snowball microphone for whole room audio ($159.95 x 3) $479.85 $145.41 Web cameras ($39.95 x 5) $199.75 $109.98 Total $19,832.98 $17,763.84

Totals $59,832.98 $57,763.84

Total Project Surplus** = $2,069.14 ** Note that all figures are based on the best available information from the School of Education, Financial Reports. Payments are shown in the account from which they were originally budgeted (although on occasions payments were made from the alternate account). If you have any questions or comments about the final report then please do not hesitate to contact me or any other member of the project team. Sincerely,

Matt Bower Senior Lecturer, Department of Education Macquarie University [email protected] Extension x8626 (On behalf of the Adobe Connect project team)

2010 adobe connect trial – final report project team · text box, and then having to get your...

Documents