TECHNOS—Ruth E. Blankenbaker

July 20, 2008

Ruth E. Blankenbaker

The Center for Interactive Learning and Collaboration (CILC), is a not-for-profit organization that assists education, libraries, and communities with interactive videoconferencing (IVC) for educational, professional development, and partnership purposes. CILC works with clients to plan, implement, and manage the successful integration of technology.

The Executive Director of CILC since its inception is Ruth Blankenbaker. She earned a Master of Science Degree from Indiana University and holds Professional Teaching Licenses for Pre-K–12 grades. Blankenbaker, who was Director of Technology at Park Tudor School in Indianapolis from 1983–1994, has also served as President of the Indiana Computer Educators and as a Board Member of the International Society of Technology Educators. Since 2004, she is an Advisory Council Member for Internet2 K20.

CILC will host The Keystone 2005 Conference—the only national conference dedicated to K–12 interactive videoconferencing—October 3–5, 2005, in Indianapolis and (of course) via IVC.

Technos: You’ve been CILC’s Executive Director from its beginning in 1994, so you’re in a unique position to tell us what CILC’s greatest challenge has been over the past 11 years.

RB: When I am asked to define CILC’s greatest challenge over the past 11 years, my fingers pause above the keyboard, and I chuckle just a bit at my attempts to figure out which one challenge I might select to discuss.

Here’s the way it was in the beginning: If you were to scatter throughout the landscape of the education community a vast amount of confusion, a high degree of suspicion, skepticism and mistrust of motive at the launch of our organization—and if you were to intersperse these emotions with an absence of vision for the use of interactive videoconferencing (IVC) technologies—then you would have adequately captured the scenery CILC faced when it was formed in 1994.

Challenges were so abundant that I think I’d like to discuss one I least expected, instead. What caught me off guard was the monster, like some apparition materializing from a foggy meadow. I came face to face with the reality that working collaboratively for the purpose of learning is not something educators have historically, or cheerfully, done.

They may have met on the football field, but as rivals; they may have vied for the same funds, but as competitors. But share intellectual resources and opportunities? Mouths closed. Doors shut. Blinds pulled just a bit further down their mental windows.

If I couldn’t find a way to open the mouths, doors and windows of educators’ minds in geographically dispersed schools, then deploying a technology that connected them to each other so they could share educational opportunities would be a useless endeavor. These intellectual neighbors who were strangers had to become academic friends. They had to sit down at tables and talk. They needed to develop an open mind and a willingness to share. They needed to build trust and an appreciation for and relationships with each other before they could put their students in touch with one another.

I learned quickly that new partnerships had to be forged and a collaborative culture created if CILC were to achieve its goal of breaking down walls that isolate schools and students from each other and most certainly from the world around them.

The unanticipated challenge, then, was the necessity for building a functional human network before the implementation of a fiber-based one could be used to its advantage. And that this human network had to be community-minded and collaborative-driven, self-sustaining, and to the degree it was possible, free from enervating bureaucracies. Why? Because interactive video technologies, by their very nature, connect humans to humans—not machines to machines. And, if those humans who connect cannot communicate, then they will never advance to true collaborations through interactive videoconferencing technologies.

How did CILC meet the challenge?

Initially, CILC established clusters of school corporations based on geographic boundaries. Clusters made sense administratively. Schools could collaborate to provide the benefits of resource- and cost-sharing, coordinate planning of curriculum and services, and schedule events and courses, if desired. Further, because new relationships needed to be established and given time to coalesce, the cluster concept was one way of addressing the social and educational change issues in an emerging collaborative, which relied on building communities of interest and trust.

To support these clusters of schools, CILC provided funding to hire coordinators, who wore many hats, not the least of which was that of “change agent.” Most importantly, these coordinators worked to make video conferencing an institutionalized part of schooling in the face of other daunting challenges: school budgets, many of which were shrinking; class bells, few of which were in sync; local policies and politics, all different and all complex; the culture of schools, universes unto themselves; the governance of a technology innovation for which there was little research on record; and the use of a video-based learning environment for which there was even less legal precedent concerning issues of rights and responsibilities of teachers, students, and content providers.

Collectively, the videoconferencing coordinators engendered the creation of community and the development of content, and built, piece by piece, the support systems needed to make videoconferencing a routine part of schooling and not just another add-on technology.

What do you think CILC’s greatest achievement has been?

I am tempted to say that perhaps our greatest achievement is that CILC is alive—and doing well enough that folks like you are wanting to interview us. It certainly is one indicator that we have accomplished some degree of success.

Beyond just being alive and giving interviews, though, I could also point to it being an achievement that we survived the contentious altercations surrounding a telco’s regulatory reform years. We rose above the skepticism about and lack of vision for the use of interactive video within the K–12 environment. And, that, in spite of all we faced, we were able to develop services now receiving national and international attention.

And I could leave it at that, but I won’t. I believe CILC’s greatest achievement is that from our beginning, we understood our work was not about learning with technology. It was all about learning. Period.

We knew that if we did not approach the implementation of interactive video technologies within the K–12 school environment with a systems view, our initiative would be like most all others: a program to drop-ship equipment with an assumption that it would be used and used well. Our implementation strategy recognized that, while having access to a network and hardware to use on that network were essential, they were not as important as having a reason to use them. Every act within the K–12 environment must be purpose driven, and if that purpose is not clear, then resources (of time and money and people) are not dedicated to it. Clearly, purposeful applications in an interactive video environment, which engaged students, had to be developed. Finally, we knew that if human support systems were not put in place to transition teachers through a learning curve, then the technology and the applications would quickly be relegated to the unimportant.

And so, I believe our greatest achievement is that our three-pronged approach of providing hardware, developing content, and hiring educators to work with other educators really worked. That strategy alone became the bedrock of what we’ve evolved into today: a quality organization providing access to content and delivering one of the broadest range of services and topics related to interactive video within the K–20 market segment.

What do you see as the most critical issue facing the organization in the future?

Today, CILC faces the same issues that any business or organization faces: managing its resources, both human and financial, will always be a part of our culture. One of our most pressing, immediate challenges, though, is making a successful transition from a grant-giving organization to one that provides support services and products within the boundaries of a healthy not-for-profit organization.

A part of this transition challenge deals with a cultural mindset that confuses the terms “nonprofit” and “not-for-profit.” Both internally and externally, there is a frequent perception that it is illegal and immoral for a not-for-profit to make money. However, if CILC operates within a nonprofit mindset, then as a not-for-profit we cannot grow; we cannot innovate and try new ways to reinvest in and serve the education community.

CILC’s challenge is to be heedful of the frequent mindset within education that to charge for services is somehow immoral and to balance that perception with the real need of generating income to sustain the services “for the greater good” we provide.

What is CILC’s plan to deal with this future challenge?

Externally, through building trust and relationships and by offering timely products and services, we are defining CILC as a trustworthy, quality, not-for-profit business rather than a charity. Internally, this means that we must always be mindful of how much “mission” is returned on our investments in education. We cannot become stuck in a mentality in which we view ourselves so poor that we can survive only by the beneficence of people or organizations richer than us. To survive, we must become comfortable with a mindset that asks the question, “What is the financial return on the products and services we offer?” Because the answer to that question means we can fulfill our mission to re-invest profits in education.

What are the roles of CILC’s partner organizations and its Keystone Conference sponsors?

This is an interesting question, and one that gets to the heart of my earlier discussion about trust and relationship building. In the case of both the “partner organizations” listed on CILC’s Web site and the Keystone Conference “affiliation partners,” CILC’s goal is to pull together various stakeholder groups that, at an organizational level, can become “anchor tenants” in the larger IV community. Much like what happened in CILC’s formative years when it devised the “cluster” concept, CILC’s current partners are clusters of organizations that hopefully find common visions upon which to build new relationships and to define new ways to communicate and collaborate.

How does a group or school become a part of CILC?

Becoming a part of CILC is a simple process: navigate to http://www.cilc.org/free_membership.aspx to sign up, complete a member profile, designate areas of interest, and either contribute to or take advantage of the resources CILC manages. All members receive a catalog twice a year and are notified of new programs, collaborations, and any other information that matches their interest profiles.

I suppose one way of thinking about CILC is to think of us as an e-mall for interactive videoconferencing shoppers. We have content provider “stores,” where you can browse through their inventories to find products that match your learning needs. There are work-“shops” where you can purchase professional development sessions and consulting services. There are “food courts,” where those who are hungry for collaborative conversations can go. There are information booths and places where you can pick up flyers and brochures.

To become a part of CILC is as simple as going to our mall at the corner of http://www.cilc.org and http://www.cilc.org/free_membership.aspx to join others in the IV neighborhood who want to browse, shop, share, sell, learn and find others who, like you, want to converse or collaborate.

In what ways does CILC assist teachers, schools and/or school districts to implement IVC?

CILC is possibly most noted for its no-cost membership and access to nearly a hundred content providers who offer programming to schools. In addition, educators/students who wish to connect with each other can use CILC’s Web site Collaboration Center to find others with whom to share learning experiences in an IVC environment. This defines in many ways the greater social good we provide.

To continue supporting these no-cost services, CILC assists the education community by offering a wide array of fee-based professional training and consulting services. A link to various brochures that describe the range of topics CILC offers is: http://www.cilc.org/education.aspx.

Your online bio posts a quote from you regarding IV: “Interactive video is a technology tool that helps dissolve misunderstanding and encourages growth in understanding.” Can you elaborate on that statement for our readers?

To answer this question, I go back to the inherent nature of videoconferencing. It is digitally designed into the “genetic code” of videoconferencing that it is a technology to be used to connect humans rather than machines. And, if humans use videoconferencing to connect, they will not use this connection for any sustained time if there is not an evidence of purposeful learning or growth in some manifestation. For purposeful learning to occur, there must be an open, understanding mind.

The most powerful example I’ve encountered in which misunderstanding converted to empathy for another’s human condition happens to be my first experience with interactive video back in the early 90s while still at Park Tudor School in Indianapolis. Another school had cancelled plans to videoconference to a school in Washington, D.C., for demonstration purposes, and I was called in as a last-minute replacement. I quickly pulled together a teacher and a small group of her global issues students and headed downtown for an experience I could not entirely explain to them. When the connection came up, it was soon evident that we’d paired two groups of students on opposite ends of the social spectrum. One set was college-bound; the other was clearly street-born. Had these two sets of students been in the same school building, it is highly unlikely they would have ever found reason to communicate. It only took moments, however, for their social differences to be inconsequential because they began sharing their life conditions, their hopes, their fears, and their dreams for their futures. By the end of the hour, I knew that the lives of 10 young people had been altered forever in constructive, positive ways. As one student summed up the experience, “Had we been in the same school, we would have looked at the color of our skin and thought we had nothing in common. Because of the distance in our geography that was dissolved by the technology, we had the space we needed to learn how alike we are in our differences. This is a technology that allows our minds to meet when proximity blinds us from our hearts.”

Need I make any concluding statement here?

I think not! What is the best argument for using IVC in schools? Does it support the student-centered teaching method?

It is extremely student centered. Here are some examples of how, from someone at CILC who works more closely with teachers:

Every program is individualized to the students participating. No two programs with the same provider are the same! A lot depends on current events, how involved the classroom is, what questions are asked.

Primary or higher resources are used. When you study the Holocaust, you talk to a survivor. When you learn about Australia, you work with a classroom of kids the same age from another culture. When you study Native Americans, you IV visit a tribal cultural center, and so on.

In preparation for an IV event, the teacher becomes a facilitator helping students formulate what questions to ask, how to critically think about what they learn, and less centered on how he or she will put that information together and present it to students. This leaves the teacher more opportunity to critically evaluate the learning student-by-student, rather than worrying about the primary delivery.

Diverse opinions and views are expressed. History doesn’t have to be written by the victors, but students can make their own decisions when exposed to information they choose to explore, rather than what is selected for them in the confines of a published textbook.

Students learn to communicate and to embrace learning. They use tools they will use “in the real world,” including videoconferencing, Web browsers, and telephones. They learn to interact with people—like Olympians, surgeons…and they find out that these are people, too, and just as human as you or I. (Technology isn’t cold unless the people behind it are.)

IVC provides great clarity and focus. During a conference, students are usually focused on what is going on, and not on three whiteboards, a computer screen, and 10 other places. Because the live interaction is already through media—and the technology tends to “fade away” after just a short while—supporting media becomes less distracting. In other words, when the Ocean Institute goes from a live presenter talking about whales, outside of a whale tank, and then cuts to media of the whales swimming in the ocean, students wonder how they got the camera out there—especially since the presenter is still talking live over the video and answering questions.

Is there research to support its use in K–12 settings?

Research is just beginning to come in on the use of interactive videoconferencing in K–12 settings and its impact on student learning. Thus far, it appears very positive (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cso/download.php?dl=file&id=62). However, broad use of IVC is still a fairly new innovation, and it takes time and often money to obtain the research data that will hold up under federal scrutiny. It is also very difficult to isolate all of the variables. Students may be learning more—but can it be attributed solely to videoconferencing, or are other factors in play?

The Birmingham England ATHENA Excellence in Cities Education Action Zone project is also revealing that focused videoconferencing can strongly impact student learning (http://www.polycom.com/investor_relations/1,1434,ee-180-10299,00.html).

That being said, here is what I really want to say: I am asked this question in nearly every interview. There is tremendous pressure in education to back technology expenditures with research about its effectiveness to support learning. In my response here, I do not mean to diminish the essential, vital, important role of research, but in the case of interactive video technology, I like to ask in return, “Is there research to support the use of school buses in K–12 settings?”

Why is there a need for research surrounding interactive video technologies and not school buses? Both are simply vehicles for “transporting” students to some destination. Interactive video is simply a transport device or a tool used to access opportunities, much like what a bus is, ultimately. It is not a theory or a pedagogy that can either be proved or disproved as effective in learning environments.

Humans learn when presented with opportunities that engage their minds with meaningful experiences. Interactive video technologies greatly expand those opportunities for engaging experiences; they do not “teach.” Teachers do. And there is plenty of research about effective teaching.

Does IV affect students’ authentic research? And, in turn, does this technique affect student academic performance?

For the past six years, CILC has managed an IV learning environment in which students in authentic, problem-based classrooms engage in real issues in their communities. Called Community Partnerships or Vistas, from their inception, this kind of extended classroom has been the focus of researchers. A quick read of some of the results can be found at: http://www.cilc.org/research_reports.aspx.

In what ways can CILC help schools to ensure that curriculum provided or enhanced by IV will adhere to NCLB and/or state standards?

Before a content provider posts content to CILC’s Web site, a CILC professional evaluates that individual’s or organization’s offerings. Providers also must meet CILC’s strict posting criteria. Developed with input from CILC’s Advisory Board, the process requires submission of a comprehensive content provider biography and Program Guide for each K–12 program. Program Guides, which enhance the experience for both educators and students, include the following tools and resources:

Student learning objectives
Vocabulary words and their definitions
National and/or state standards to which programs align
Support materials
Pre- and post-program activity suggestions
Supplemental resources, such as a suggested book list and suggested Web sites

To further ensure quality and effectiveness, upon completion of each distance learning K–12 program, CILC’s Web site sends each participating educator an online evaluation instrument. These simple yet thorough surveys collect immediate feedback, which is automatically forwarded to the content provider. Prompt feedback allows the content provider to make nearly instant improvements, when needed. Plus, programs are rated based on educators’ evaluations.

Do you find that teachers like IV technology and projects as much as the students seem to?

CILC’s feedback from teachers indicates nothing but excited engagement and an expression of delight at experiences that are designed for student learning that also teach them, as well. Teachers’ voices are more authentic than mine. Here’s what some of them have told us:

“I actually learned a lot about animals and what they do in winter! Also, it gave my students a chance to speak and ask questions. (I am an ESL teacher, so it was [a] great experience!) In addition, I feel more comfortable in working with the distance-learning program due to participating in November.”

“I always learn new information and new ways of presenting information in a hands-on manner.”

“Each spring we take third graders to Conner Prairie [Indiana]. I’ve always wanted to make the trip in December to learn about Early American holiday customs, but the weather is such a chance. The content of this program was just what I had hoped it would be. Seeing the ‘residents’ in their home and doing everyday household chores along with their holiday preparations was perfect.”

“The presenters made exploring Shakespeare interesting, and the students really got involved. I was impressed with their activities as well. I gained new information on how to present a sonnet to younger students and make it fun for them.”

“The drawing activity prior to the presentation allowed me to see how well my students could apply their skills. Also, I think I learned that I as a teacher need to step back a little when providing instruction for these kinds of creative activities. I had a lot of students with similar drawings, and I think that’s perhaps because I gave too many suggestions rather than let them come up with their own ideas.”

“We were a view-only [participant] and I wish we had done the interactive because our students were very focused and answered the questions correctly. They made me very proud for what they knew and learned.”

“I think that I learned as much about animal adaptations as my students did. It was an amazing experience and one I will try to do again.”

“Excellent…It is always a learning experience when you have the chance to speak to individuals [who] are in industry…”

“I was able to see modeled for me another way to involve storytelling in the classroom and how to have the children as active participants by making things and then retelling the story with those. It was great!”

“Many of our Science Standards were tied into this presentation. The presenter had fabulous experiments that the students did on site that also met some of our standards!”

“From the technology standpoint, this was my first experience with distance learning. I was amazed at the effectiveness of this method and the ease from our standpoint.”

“Content-wise, it was a good culmination to the things we had been studying, plus it added some new things we had not yet learned. I was very impressed.”

In what ways could a school district utilize IV technology for teacher professional development or mentoring?

Videoconferencing allows professional development (PD) to be what we know it should be: ongoing and embedded in the daily practice of the school. CILC offers a wide variety of best-practice professional development options for teachers, which can be viewed at http://www.cilc.org/education.aspx.

We have observed that some educators initially resist the thought of “TV PD.” However, it usually doesn’t take long for them to make a transition to appreciating the ease with which they can receive new knowledge, skills, and coaching from some of the best educators in the country—without leaving the walls of their school building.

In addition to the ease, they also realize the decrease in costs and problems associated with hiring substitutes, if they receive training at the end of the school day rather than the “old” method of leaving their buildings for professional development opportunities. In what Claudia Wheatley, CILC’s PD expert, calls the “fairy dust approach,” before videoconferencing, we would send two to four teachers out for a day of learning with the hope they would come back to share what they learned with the rest of the school by sprinkling their new-found knowledge on the heads of their colleagues. That approach rarely works.

With videoconferencing, we can offer that same one-day program in short, ongoing sessions that everyone can attend right after school. In between sessions, teachers have time to practice new skills and ideas and report back on successes and challenges as they move through the continuum of learning. Experts and instructional coaches like it because they eliminate their own travel, can actually create relationships with the educators, and can feel assured that the school is implementing the ideas effectively. Districts can also use videoconferencing to do their own in-house professional development. Grade-level or content teams at different schools within the district can meet on an ongoing basis to develop curriculum, examine student work, and develop collaborative projects. Once again, no one has to travel and educators can take advantage of schedules with the district to provide short, ongoing sessions.

CILC is noticing a rapid increase in the number of schools that initially used interactive video systems for student learning but that are now using them with teachers who also want to learn. The URL where readers can learn more about CILC’s PD programs is: http://www.cilc.org/Professional_Development.aspx.

Is IV an expensive technology?

“Expensive” is a relative term. For some, a low-end starter system of $200–$500 is expensive. For others, a higher-end system costing in the $25,000–$35,000 range is “expensive.” Further, “expense” can also be defined in terms other than dollars, such as in terms of costs related to human resources that should be (in my opinion) dedicated to managing an effective, successful IV environment.

Another way to look at the concept of “expense,” is to compare the costs of an experience through traditional means with the costs of a similar experience through videoconferencing. For example, what would it cost for a class of fifth graders in Texas to travel to the Indianapolis Museum of Art on Monday to explore the role of art in communicating power and social ideas through proverbs and symbols of ancient Egyptian, Yoruba, and Akan cultures—and then on Wednesday of the same week to visit the Manhattan School of Music for an introduction to jazz? These experiences in travel costs alone would be prohibitive for any school, let alone the loss in instructional time and safety concerns. But with a modest one-time $7,000–$10,000 mid-range investment, students could participate in these two experiences in faraway places for a $295 expenditure.

Relatively, interactive video technology might be expensive for some; comparatively, it is not for all.

How can schools without big budgets incorporate it?

At the most basic level and for a limited quality experience (assuming there is an adequate network installed), a teacher could set up an IVC system by adding some software and a Web cam for $200–$500 to his or her laptop. And although this type of setup works best for a single user, I know of some situations in which a teacher has used this configuration and connected it to a large-screen projector for whole-class experiences.

The caution, though, is that expectations of quality should be set at the level of the expenditure. Lower-cost systems work okay for student collaborations in some cases, but they deliver a much less gratifying experience if students connect to the Ocean Institute for an underwater dive. What must be balanced is the need for the experience with the need for the quality of an experience.

It’s been said that IV can actually help schools and/or districts save money—is this true?

I believe this is absolutely true. In addition to the earlier cost-saving example I gave in which I compared traditional travel to IVC “travel,” these same kinds of cost savings are realized by those schools that use their IVC systems to hold meetings of any kind that require participants to travel. Educators are also beginning to recognize that through their IVC systems they can cost-share big-name speakers by having them address audiences in multiple locations. In other cases, school systems strapped for resources to hire all the teachers they need are still able to offer an expanded or enriched curriculum because their students can take classes in one place while their teacher is in another.

On a personal note: Do you use IV in your job as CILC’s Executive Director?

I certainly do use interactive video in my job. I regularly video-meet with others without leaving my desk’s workspace. Because I have a desktop unit just a finger’s breadth away, it means that a face-to-face conversation is simply a button push away. The IP number for my desk unit is: 69.39.129.204. Although I still receive more phone calls than video calls, the number of people who connect for a conversation consistently increases, and this is especially true for those outside the United States.

Would you like to use it in the classroom again, with young students?

I often wish I were back in a school. If my classroom were equipped with interactive video technologies, then what places we could go; what people we could meet! There is nothing more gratifying than seeing the sparkle of joy and wonder in a child’s eye when she encounters new adventures. Videoconferencing teachers today truly are blessed.

Finally: What advice would you give to new college graduates, just coming out of teacher-ed programs, as far as using technology in their classrooms?

My advice to new teacher-ed graduates entering classrooms today is that they really have no choice but to surround their students with technology-related experiences. Our world is wired, and if learning is disconnected from that wired world, then schooling is a meaningless and irrelevant activity. In short, learning about our world must be within the context of that world. Interactive video is truly a window through which students can view their world and a door through which they can walk to engaging opportunities.

Ruth Blankenbaker may be reached at rblanken@cilc.org, or at 317-231-6527. For videoconferencing, her IP # is: 69.39.129.204.