jump to navigation

Transactional Webinar Design 16/04/2020

Posted by abasiel in Uncategorized.
trackback

Please see the full paper from the introduction and conclusion below at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W-ps95oELnKXXsydehI8WAB5-MMccaTm

Transactional Webinar Design
by Anthony Basiel and Mike Howarth April 2020

abasiel@gmail.com | drmichaelhowarth@icloud.com
https://abasiel.wordpress.com | http://www.mhmvr.co.uk/

Introduction
During the time of the 2020 Coronavirus, there was an unprecedented increase in web video conferencing for professional and academic use (Business Insider 2020). From the trial-and-error approach used by many organisations, it has become apparent that guidelines for conducting webinars are needed. What are the protocols that can inform webinar design? A theoretical foundation is needed to provide a clear plan forward in the research and development of webinar interaction. This paper puts forward a ‘transactional webinar design’. A starting proposition for any webinar event is for the stakeholders to recognise the nature and degree of self-directedness. In doing so, we are working towards autonomous, self-managed webinar participants and stakeholders. The narrative of this paper moves through a series of questions. First, WHAT are the key factors of a successful webinar? Next, HOW can we blend the tools with the interactive/transactional design? Lastly, WHY would we choose this webinar model?

When engaging in an argument, a starting common language is needed. What do we mean by ‘transactional’? Dewey (1949) explains ‘transaction’ in an education context, as the individual’s pattern of behaviour in an environment. The webinar virtual 2D space is addressed in this paper. According to Moore (1997) the separation of [stakeholders] is sufficiently significant that special [engagement] strategies and techniques are needed.
This webinar analysis begins by looking at WHAT elements comprise a successful event and the related evaluation criteria. This section starts with the technical components and moves to examine the stakeholder’s profiles. When hosting or attending a webinar, is there a clear model of the expectations of the participants? Is there an inherent expectation for the interactions to be identical to a face-to-face discussion, classroom lecture, seminar debate, role-play enactment, or unstructured brainstorming? This expectation needs to be explicit so there is a criteria to measure success. In this way, there is a benchmark to form the ‘transactional webinar design’.

Conclusion

This paper investigated three questions in relation to webinar design:

  1. WHAT are the key factors of a successful webinar?
  2. HOW can we blend the tools with the interactive/transactional design?
  3. WHY would we choose this webinar model?

For a variety of learning environments, Moore (1997) suggests that distance learning requires changes in the traditional role of teachers to be able to select media for (webinar) instruction. This paper has shown these key issues:

  • Successful webinars require technical and pedagogic blending depending on the profile of the stakeholders,
  • The degree of learner autonomy is related to the instructional design,
  • The next-generation of webinar design may move from the current 2D (outside-looking-in) view to include a 3D immersive (inside-looking-out) perspective,
  • Webinar pedagogy can provide learning opportunities from traditional Behaviourist instructional design to Humanists creative brainstorming,
  • One approach to addressing ‘learning entropy’ in a large Socratic webinar discussion can be to use techniques such as a fishbone diagram,
  • The Transactional Webinar Profile Toolkit (2020), provided in this research, gives the reader software to apply Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory to a real-world webinar event,
  • Ongoing evaluation needs to be part of the webinar design.

By building a virtual learning community researching webinar design, we can progress towards the next-generation pedagogies and technology blends presented in this paper. The authors challenge readers to contact them to provide case study feedback on the results of using the Transactional Webinar Profile Toolkit and webinar learning theory offered. Through the analysis of the case study examples tends can inform the future designs of webinars. The authors predict a paradigm shift to more creative brainstorming webinars in the near future to promote autonomous learners.

Comments»

1. City of Westminster College Webinar Forum | Dr. Anthony 'Skip' Basiel - eLearning R&D - 29/05/2020

[…] or presenting a webinar to look at our paper on ‘Transactional Webinar Design’ at https://abasiel.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/transactional-webinar-design/and try out our online toolkit form to create a profile or self-assessment of your webinar at: […]


Please email abasiel@gmail.com with any questions.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: