Author: Clive Shepherd

Web meetings, webinars and virtual classrooms compared

A table comparing the three principle uses of real-time online communication.

Unless I’ve missed something important, there seem to be three distinct uses for real-time online commmunications. The following table represents a first attempt at clarifying the discriminating characteristics of these three:

  Web meetings Webinars Virtual classrooms
Primary purpose To solve problems and make decisions To share ideas and experiences To facilitate learning
Secondary purposes To provide updates To promote the speaker or organiser None
Face-to-face equivalent A short business meeting A session at a seminar or conference A classroom session
Who’s in charge? The chair of the meeting The host and/or presenter The teacher / trainer
Typical activities Presentation of situation updates and proposals; discussion of proposals; decision-making; action planning Presentation of ideas and experiences; demonstrations; polling of audience opinion; Q&A; discussion; participant-to-participant text chat (back channel) Ice  breakers; presentation of formal content; software demos (for IT training); group exercises and activities; discussion; formative and summative assessment
Visual focus Participant webcams; shared documents; slides Slides; presenter webcam; text chat; polls; website tours Slides; electronic whiteboard; questions/polls; shared applications; website tours; text chat
Auditory focus Participants’ vocal contributions Host / presenters’ voices; possibly also participants’ vocal contributions Teacher/trainer’s voice and participants’ vocal contributions
Most frequently used interactive devices Voice; text chat Voice; text chat; polls Voice; text chat; electronic whiteboard; questions/polls; application sharing; break-out rooms
Tangible outputs Agreed actions / minutes Recordings; participant feedback Recordings; participant feedback; assessment scores

If you believe there are other, distinct forms, or feel you could refine or add to this table, I’d love to hear from you.

A first time user's hints and tips

Extract from a Towards Maturity case study of Devon Countil Council.

I was interested in the experiences of web conferencing beginners Devon County Council as reported on the Towards Maturity site – see Devon County Council improves efficiency with web conferencing. In particular I thought I’d share their hints and tips:

  • If you are conducting a programme for over 16, you need to have 2 of you supporting learners, one leading the event and the other supporting individuals via the chat room.
  • We found that a half day workshop could be compressed into a 1 hour webinar.
  • If you are asking staff to interact with the content (through note taking, mind maps etc) then an hour on the end of a telephone is quite a lot – it’s better to make a small investment in headphones that can be loaned to staff on the programme which leaves their hands free.
  • Make sure you have a quiet venue to conduct the session from – an open plan office isn’t the best.
  • PC’s in the council are timed to shut down if inactive for a certain period – we had to be proactive in introducing time for ‘mouse wiggle’ into the programme – a bit of fun that kept both staff and their machines engaged!
  • Without the face-to-face contact, we found that we had to concentrate on varying style and content within the webinar to engage staff.

How people buy webinars

webinars

Lee Salz runs an interesting blog called Business Expert Webinars, which focuses on the business of selling webinars. Yes, you read that correctly, places at webinars can be sold – they don’t have to be freebies. In The Unique Buying Process in For-Fee Webinars, Lee describes how differently the buying process works when you’re offering free and paid-for events:

  • When the webinar’s for free, the majority of attendees register a month in advance, probably on the basis of the first promotion. However, as Lee explains, “only 25 – 35% will show up to the free webinar since they did not make a commitment to attend.”
  • With a paid-for event, the process is the exact opposite. The prospect makes a note of when the webinar is to be held, then waits right until the last moment to see whether they will be free to attend. Once they’ve made the payment, they’ll definitely turn up.

There’s no reason why someone shouldn’t pay for a place at a webinar, as long as the topic is sufficiently interesting and there is no hidden agenda, usually promotional. After all, they pay big bucks to see the same speakers at face-to-face events.

The multitask assumption

Makes the case that multitasking is natural and only to be expected for webinar participants.

The multitask assumption. Sounds like a good name for a spy film, probably starring someone like Michael Caine, and with a plot so intricate that you never really know which side each character is on – who’s a friend and who’s an enemy.
So what is the multitask assumption? It’s the assumption you can safely make with any webinar that a good proportion of the audience is multitasking – you know, checking emails, answering the phone, listening to music, finishing off a report, and so on. They intend to concentrate on your webinar – after all, that’s why they signed up – but they just can’t help themselves, the distractions are so persistent and so inviting.
This sounds like a situation where it’s quite clear who’s a friend and who’s an enemy: the friends are those who are listening to you with rapt attention; the enemies all those others who can’t even pay you the respect of tuning in with all faculties engaged for a single hour of their lives.
But are these people your enemies? Do you behave any differently when you’re attending someone else’s webinar? I don’t think so. For many, attending a webinar is like listening to the radio or watching TV – you tune in and out depending on the the attractiveness of what else is on offer. You would do exactly the same if you were at a conventional meeting or conference too, but you can’t because it looks bad; it’s disrespectful and insensitive.
As far as participants are concerned, multitasking is a benefit of the webinar format, not a drawback. For the facilitator, it’s a challenge. You could fight it by insisting on continual interactivity, demanding that participants use webcams so you can see what they’re up to (I know, not really practical for more than a small group), or using one of these new platforms that let you know when each participants’ web conferencing window is active or submerged behind a host of others.
Here’s what Ken Molay had to say in Must your webinar be interactive? on The Webinar Blog: ‘I prefer to work on presentation style and techniques that subtly (or not so subtly) refocus attention on your content and your presentation, over and over, in a continuous barrage of attention recapture cues. I assume that people are multitasking and drifting. So I use vocal pitch and speed changes to recapture their auditory attention and interest. I use verbal directions that tell them to refocus on the screen: “So, as you see at the top of the first column…” or “Look at the picture I used to illustrate this concept…” And of course I use direct interactions through chat dialogs, polls, whiteboards, or other technology features. But even when you have strong content and do everything right, you can simply get an audience that prefers a passive experience.’
A webinar is not a virtual classroom session (see So what exactly is a webinar?). With a webinar, there isn’t the expectation that there would be in a classroom that everybody should be fully engaged and participate in every activity. So by all means try your hardest to maintain their attention – after all, you must believe that what you have to say is important – but don’t get upset if you don’t succeed. Assume multitasking and don’t take it personally.

Increasing use of web conferencing for sales training

Cites a report from Citrix which shows how the use of web conferencing for sales training is on the increase.

Increasing sales effectiveness with online training, a new report from Citrix Online, highlights just what an important role web conferencing is playing in sales training. Using data from a recent Manasco Marketing Group survey, the report shows there is a significant rise in the number of sales organisations that rely on online training to stay competitive:

  • “The survey data reveals a considerable jump in the number of sales organizations that are conducting online training (54 percent last year compared to 70 percent this year).”
  • “56 percent report that they have integrated onsite and online training for sales development.”
  • “Online training is more frequently utilized for product updates and refresher sales training.”
  • “Organisations are more than twice as likely to hold sales development activities more often when they utilise online training. A full 20 percent of respondents report that they conduct online training sessions once a week or once every two weeks.”
  • “The survey results presented a nearly universal consensus – with 94 percent of respondents in agreement – that limiting disruptions to the sales process is an important consideration when designing a sales training program. And for 78 percent of respondents, travel costs also play a significant role in making sales training decisions.”
With most sales staff based away from a central office, it’s easy to see why online training is likely to be popular for this audience. Nevertheless, in my experience, this is a tough and demanding audience to work with, so it’s encouraging to see how successfully this change has been implemented.

Exploring the arguments for online meetings

A comparison between face-to-face and live online communication, in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency.

I’ve been collecting my arguments for and against face-to-face and live online communication, in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. I’m making no distinction between meetings, webinars and training sessions. Here goes:

Which medium is more effective, i.e. is more likely to help you achieve your goals?
 
Face-to-face communication can be more effective than online communication because:
  • discussions can be more freeform and spontaneous;
  • on the rare occasions when a lengthy meeting really is needed, this is likely to be more comfortably achieved face-to-face;
  • you can engage in activities that require participants to be in the same physical space.
Live online communication can be more effective than face-to-face communication because:
  • meetings can be held as soon as the need arises, without waiting for participants to travel to a central location;
  • it will be easier to attract the participation of experts who are geographically dispersed;
  • a greater degree of anonymity makes it easier for more retiring participants to contribute;
  • the text chat ‘back channel’ enables networking and collaboration to take place even during other activities (especially presentations);
  • the ability to record sessions makes it possible for those who miss the live event to still gain some benefit.
Which medium is more efficient, i.e. will use less of your resources?
 
Face-to-face communication can be more efficient than online communication because:
  • it does not depend on the availability of technology – connectivity, devices, etc.;
  • the skills in facilitating face-to-face meetings are more widely available.
Live online communication canl be more efficient than face-to-face communication because:
  • it is cheaper in terms of travel, subsistence, etc.;
  • it takes less time in terms of travel, etc.;
  • it is more environmentally friendly;
  • it encourages shorter meetings;
  • if some element of a meeting is not relevant, you can easily do something else.

I’m bound to have missed something important here, so comments please.

Sometimes you can try too hard

Explores the idea that webinars don’t have to be highly interactive to be effective.

Last week I mused on the difference between a webinar and a virtual classroom session (see So what exactly is a webinar?). It became clear that a webinar was essentially a presentation by an expert on a specialist topic, much like the sessions you’ll experience at any conference. Although a webinar is, more often than not, a learning event, it is quite different in character – and in the expectations of participants – to a workshop or typical small group classroom session.
 
I’m reminded of a friend who attended an Open University summer school a few years back. Although this person was a trainer by background, and used to facilitating highly-interactive workshops, they were frustrated with the ‘time wasted’ on collaborative activities during lectures by eminent academics. What this person wanted was to sit and listen, to reflect, and perhaps take a few notes. Interaction could come later, in informal discussion with other participants.
 
For this reason, I was particularly interested in what Ken Molay had to say in Must your webinar be interactive? on The Webinar Blog:
 
“You have to disassociate yourself from your own predefined concept of what indicates success or failure of your presentation and associate yourself instead with the way your audience wants to take in the information. So instead of vainly trying more and more interaction techniques on unwilling subjects, eliminate the remainder of your polls. Stop urging the audience to answer questions via the chat window. Instead, concentrate on supplying detailed and valuable information in more of a straightforward discourse. The important thing is not to sound disappointed or to make an indication that this isn’t your preferred method of presentation. If they want to hear a lecture, then by golly you’re going to give them a great lecture!”
 
Sometimes you really can try too hard.

Learning footprint calculator

Thanks to Jane Hart for drawing our attention to this interesting little tool. The calculator has been around for a couple of years, but it’s now back in a new version. This latest edition allows users to generate a PDF of their report so they can share findings with colleagues and help put the ‘learning footprint’ into the business case for a greater use of web conferencing and other forms of elearning.

So what exactly is a webinar?

Examines the meaning of the term ‘webinar’ and contrasts this with a virtual classroom.

You might think it’s obvious – a webinar is, of course, a web seminar. But what is a seminar? I typed ‘define:seminar’ into Google hoping to get some clarification:

  • Any meeting for an exchange of ideas.
  • A course offered for a small group of advanced students.
  • A form of academic instruction.
  • A class that has a group discussion format rather than a lecture format.
  • Lecture and dialogue allowing participants to share experiences in a particular field under the guidance of an expert discussion leader.
  • Informal discussion and analysis of intellectual material in small groups.
How about the Oxford Concise Dictionary?
  • A small class at a university, etc. for discussion and research.
  • A short intensive course of study.
  • A conference of specialists.
Some characteristics come through clearly from these definitions:
  • That a seminar is a learning event.
  • That, although a seminar may well include an element of lecture/presentation, interactivity, typically in the form of discussion, is also important (see the words I have italicised).
  • That a seminar is likely to be pitched at an advanced/specialised audience.
So, that’s a seminar. But to what extent are these characteristics carried through into the typical webinar? Well, in many cases, very well – a web seminar is exactly what you get. But of course, sometimes the objective is only superficially a learning one – the real purpose is to familiarise you with a product or service, or to enhance the reputation of a consultant or supplier. It’s marketing dressed as education. I’m not  implying that this makes the session any less ‘pure’ or ‘ethical’, just that it only partially meets the definition of a seminar.
 
It’s also possible that a webinar will include little or no discussion, or any other form of interaction for that matter. Essentially, it’s a lecture/presentation, just like you’ll see at a conference. There may well be a learning objective for the presentation, but the event is certainly not instructional. If learning does takes place, it is because the participant is grabbed by the content of the presentation and is prepared to take it forward in some way – just as this can happen when you read a book, listen to a radio broadcast or watch a TV documentary.
 
Although a webinar clearly can have a learning purpose, I still believe it is useful to distinguish this from a full-on, virtual classroom session. Just as there’s a clear distinction between a conference and a training course in the bricks and mortar world, there’s the same difference when you move online. It is almost impossible to conceive of a virtual classroom session that is not interactive and that doesn’t have a clear educational/training purpose. It’s the world of the teacher/trainer rather than the lecturer/presenter. And whereas a webinar can have any number of participants, a virtual classroom will only work with small numbers.
 
For that reason, at onlignment, we make a clear separation between the webinar and the virtual classroom. They require different skills and obey different rules.