Holographic Video Conferencing for Fostering Communication and Participation: Pre-Conceptualization of Focus Group of Female Learners in Arab Open University (KSA)

  • Authors

    • Abdulrazak M. Aman
    • Norshuhada Shiratuddin
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.29.21709

    Received date: November 26, 2018

    Accepted date: November 26, 2018

    Published date: November 26, 2018

  • Blended Learning, Holographic Video Conference, Design Science Research, Arab Open University

  • Abstract

    Educational institutes are quick to take benefits of technological facilities through incorporating ICT into education, particularly for female students in Saudi education system due to the imposed religious barriers, which sequentially has produced innovative models of education such as, distance learning and blended learning. Deriving from this, holographic video conference (HVC) is considered to be a new tool for better achievement with respect to communication and participation of female students at Arab Open University in Saudi Arabia. This phenomenon makes it progressively important to understand factors impacting it. The study will use design science research (DSR) as a research paradigm that will create and evaluate information technology (IT) artifacts proposed in this research to explain recognized female students’ problems.  DSR model includes five phases which are: awareness of problem, suggestion, development, evaluation and conclusion. The proposed research method will be used to determine the perceptions of female learners towards HVC. Using this technique, the effectiveness of HVC in regards to participation and communication of female learners with the male instructors will be determined.

  • References

    1. Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231-246, (2011).
    2. Al-Asmari, A. M., & Rabb Khan, M. S. (2014). E-learning in Saudi Arabia: Past, present and future. Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, 2, 1-11.
    3. Al-Dosari, H. Faculty members and students perceptions of eLearn-ing in the English department: A project evaluation. Journal of So-cial Sciences, 7(3), 391-407, (2011).
    4. ALGARNI, A. Video Conferencing Technology for Distance Learn-ing in Saudi Arabia: Current Problems, Feasible Solutions and De-veloping an Innovative Interactive Communication System based on Internet and wifi Technology for Communication Enhance-ment (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University), (2014).
    5. Alhabeeb, A., & Rowley, J. Critical success factors for eLearning in Saudi Arabian universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 131-147, (2017).
    6. Al‐Qahtani, A. A., & Higgins, S. E. Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher educa-tion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234, (2013).
    7. Aloraini, S. Proposed Model for Distance Education in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Based on the British, Malaysian and Arab Open University Models, Paper presented at “First International Confer-ence on eLearning and Distance Learning (eLi 2009)”: Riyadh – KSA, (2009).
    8. Alsuwaida, N. Women's Education in Saudi Arabia. Journal of In-ternational Education Research, 12(4), 111-11, (2016).
    9. Aman, A. M., Meddour, H., Majid, A. H., & Auf, M. A. Exploring the Use of Holographic Telepresence in Designing Virtual Learning Environments: A Saudi Experience. International Journal of Eco-nomic Perspectives, 10(4), 610-621, (2016).
    10. Arna'out, A. R. The Effectiveness of E-Learning Coordinators’ Per-formance: Faculty Members’ Perspective. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 6(1), 35-48, (2016).
    11. Barkhaya, N. M. M., & Halim, N. D. A. A review of application of 3D hologram in education: A meta-analysis. In Engineering Educa-tion (ICEED), 2016 IEEE 8th International Conference (pp. 257-260), (2016).
    12. Bhasin, B. Integration of Information and Communication Technologies in Enhancing Teaching and Learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 130-140, (2012).
    13. Burgess, M. L., Slate, J. R., Rojas-LeBouef, A., & LaPrairie, K. Teaching and learning in Second Life: Using the Community of In-quiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate stu-dents in instructional technology. The Internet and Higher Educa-tion, 13(1), 84-88, (2010).
    14. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. E-learning and the science of instruc-tion, 2nd ed. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA, USA, (2007).
    15. Dimitrios, B., Labros, S., Nikolaos, K., Maria, K., & Athanasios, K. Traditional Teaching Methods Vs. Teaching Through The Applica-tion Of Information And Communication Technologies In The Ac-counting Field: Quo Vadis?. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 9(28), (2013).
    16. Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. Blended learn-ing. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 7(1), 12-24, (2004).
    17. El-Guindi, F. Is There an Islamic Alternative? The Case of Egypt’s Contemporary Islamic Movement. International Insight, 1(4), 22, (1981).
    18. Fadale, A. V. The use of a virtual network as a professional devel-opment tool for teachers (pp. 1-180). Pepperdine University, (1999).
    19. Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6), 5-13, (2002).
    20. Ghuloum, H. 3D Hologram Technology in Learning Environment. Informing Science & IT Education Conference (pp. 693–704). Italy. Retrieved from: (2010).
    21. http://proceedings.informingscience.org/In-SITE2010/InSITE10p693-704Ghuloum751.pdf
    22. Greenberg, A. D. Mapping the latest research into video-based distance education. Wainhouse Research, LLC, (2009).
    23. Harrington, A. M. Problematizing the Hybrid Classroom for ESL/EFL Students. TESL-EJ 14(3), 1-13, (2010).
    24. Hevner, A. R. A three cycle view of design science re-search. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 87-92, (2007).
    25. Ibrahim, R., Leng, N. S., Yusoff, R. C. M., Samy, G. N., Masrom, S., & Rizman, Z. I. E-learning acceptance based on technology ac-ceptance model (TAM). Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sci-ences, 9(4S), 871-889, (2017).
    26. Johnson, T. E., Top, E., & Yukselturk, E. Team shared mental mod-el as a contributing factor to team performance and students’ course satisfaction in blended courses. Computers in Human Behav-ior, 27(6), 2330-2338, (2011).
    27. Karal, H., Ayça, Ç. E. B. I., & Yigit, E. T. Perceptions of students who take synchronous courses through video conferencing about distance education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educa-tional Technology, 10(4), (2011).
    28. Kerres, M., & Witt, C. D. A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 101-113, (2003).
    29. Mayadas, A. F., & Picciano, A. G. Blended learning and localness: The means and the end. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net-works, 11(1), 3-7, (2007).
    30. Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(3), 313-337, (2006).
    31. Newman, D. L. Videoconferencing Technology in K-12 Instruction: Best Practices and Trends: IGI Global. Information Science Refer-ence. Hershey, NY, (2007).
    32. Offermann, P., Levina, O., Schönherr, M., & Bub, U. Outline of a design science research process. In Proceedings of the 4th Interna-tional Conference on Design Science Research in Information Sys-tems and Technology (p. 7). ACM(2009).
    33. Rather, F. M. Education and Women Empowerment in Saudi Ara-bia. Quarterly Journal of Chinese Studies, 4(3), 96-110, (2016).
    34. Rawaf, H. S. A., & Simmons, C. Distance higher education for women in Saudi Arabia: Present and proposed. Distance Educa-tion, 13(1), 65-80, (1992).
    35. Shao, L., Lin, W. S., & Ko, C. C. Video object segmentation based on change detection and region growing. In Proc. IASTED Int. Conf. on Signal and Image Processing (pp. 387-391), (1998).
    36. Smith, L. & Abouammoh, A. Higher education in Saudi Arabia: achievements, challenges and opportunities. New York: Springer, (2013).
    37. Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., & Yoshikawa, H. Modeling design pro-cess. AI Magazine, 11(4), 37-48, (1990)..
    38. Tselios, N. K., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 224-235, (2011).
    39. Thorne, K. Blended learning: How to integrate online & traditional learning. Kogan Page Publishers: London, (2003).
    40. Voogt, J., Almekinders, M., van den Akker, J., & Moonen, B. A ‘blended’in-service arrangement for classroom technology integra-tion: impacts on teachers and students. Computers in Human Be-havior, 21(3), 523-539,(2005).
    41. Walker, R. A. Holograms as Teaching Agents. In Journal of Phys-ics: Conference Series (Vol. 415, No. 1, p. 012076). IOP Publishing, (2013).

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    M. Aman, A., & Shiratuddin, N. (2018). Holographic Video Conferencing for Fostering Communication and Participation: Pre-Conceptualization of Focus Group of Female Learners in Arab Open University (KSA). International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4.29), 157-162. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.29.21709