See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344405066

Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the quality of the educational

experience Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the quality of the
educational experience

Article  in  Distance Education · September 2020

DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1821607

CITATIONS READS

123 4,600

3 authors:

Ana-Paula Correia Chenxi Liu

The Ohio State University The Ohio State University
78 PUBLICATIONS   2,472 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fan Xu
The Ohio State University
5 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Redesigning Basic Statistics course for improving student performance and retention. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fan Xu on 28 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Distance Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the

quality of the educational experience

Ana-Paula Correia , Chenxi Liu & Fan Xu

To cite this article: Ana-Paula Correia , Chenxi Liu & Fan Xu (2020): Evaluating
videoconferencing systems for the quality of the educational experience, Distance Education, DOI:
10.1080/01587919.2020.1821607

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821607

Published online: 27 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdie20
DISTANCE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821607

ARTICLE

Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the quality of the

educational experience
Ana-Paula Correia , Chenxi Liu, and Fan Xu
Department of Educational Studies & Center on Education and Training for Employment, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, United States of America

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study analyzed four widely used videoconferencing systems: Received 28 May 2020
Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, and WhatsApp. Using experiential Accepted 7 September 2020
e-learning as the framework for analysis, this study examined the Keywords
systems’ general characteristics, learning-related features, and usability. videoconferencing;
We conducted an analytical evaluation and analyzed system features in experiential e-learning;
regard to their impact on the quality of the online educational experi­ analytical evaluation;
ence. The results of this analysis provide guidance for selecting effec­ usability
tive videoconferencing systems to support learning. They also offer
insights on ways to explore teaching approaches and pedagogies for
distance education. This paper offers a set of recommendations as well
as suggestions for videoconferencing system improvements.

Background
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the impetus for a shift to emergency online distance
teaching has required many educators, teachers, students, parents, and administrators to rely
on videoconferencing systems for synchronous communication. This emergency response to
physical distancing proves to be challenging because it is unprecedent and unplanned.
Schools, colleges, and universities that used to provide online instructional support to small
groups of instructors were not able to respond to all the instructors in a 1- to 2-week period.
This caused an exorbitant amount of stress and anxiety among instructors who were not
familiar with online distance teaching before the pandemic to cope well with the unpredict­
able change on their teaching (Hodges et al., 2020). Although well-designed online learning
can carry the same quality as face-to-face learning (Hodges et al., 2020; Milman, 2020), the
necessary time to design, develop, and implement high-quality online teaching and learning
experiences was nonexistent; therefore, emergency distance teaching was the response. The
shift to emergency distance teaching has exacerbated the digital divide and made it difficult to
provide students equal online learning opportunities as well as raising concerns regarding the
accessibility of digital resources, and student data and privacy (Trust, 2020).
Without much instructional guidance, educators turned to what they felt was natural, real-
time communication and tried to replicate the classroom in videoconferencing virtual meet­
ings. To make the situation more complex, there is a lack of systematic analysis of

CONTACT Ana-Paula Correia [email protected]

© 2020 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
2 A. CORREIA ET AL.

videoconferencing systems that support educational endeavours and provide guidance to

educators (Al-Samarraie, 2019).
The history of videoconferencing can be traced back to the 1960s; however, it was not
prevalent among organizations because of the high costs associated with it (Sondak &
Sondak, 1995). With the dramatic development of technology, the restrictions to specialized
equipment and computer networks decreased, and the use of videoconferencing became
more popular (Sondak & Sondak, 1995) in the mid to late 1990s. Especially in the last two
decades, videoconferencing has been applied to educational contexts from higher educa­
tion initially to mainstream schooling later (Lawson et al., 2010). Back in the late 1990s,
Andrews and Klease (1998, p. 4) suggested that teaching and learning by videoconferencing
“is a unique method of providing real time face-to-face interaction that enables immediate
peer and teacher interaction and feedback.” However, it must be recognized that a series of
technological problems emerged in previous practices, which required instructors to be
equipped with a relatively high level of technical knowledge to respond to these issues
(Knox, 1997), in particular in web-based videoconferencing tools (Al-Samarraie, 2019).
Although a considerable number of case studies sharing the experience of using video­
conferencing in education can be found (e.g., Al-Samarraie, 2019; Dudding, 2009; Hampel &
Stickler, 2005; Karabulut & Correia, 2008; Khalid & Hossan, 2016), there is limited literature
focused on the contextual factors that affect learning outcomes through videoconferencing,
and even fewer have talked about the impact of different videoconferencing systems to online
learning and teaching (Lawson et al., 2010). Foronda and Lippincott (2014) examined the use
of a videoconferencing system in a master’s level nursing degree. Qualitative data from the
study showed five emergent themes: enjoyment, flexibility, convenience, interaction, and
technological problems. Participants reported that using videoconferencing “made learning
comparable or better than face-to-face methods” (Foronda & Lippincott, 2014, p. 5). On the
other hand, Lai and Pratt (2009) pointed out about technological difficulties and implementa­
tion issues that come from using videoconferencing technology for online teaching and
learning. They found out that its use had not necessarily improved teacher-student or student-
student interaction and reiterated the need for teachers’ knowledge on technology integration
when using videoconferencing systems. Similarly, Rehn et al. (2016, p. 313) highlighted the
need for teachers “to learn how to adapt pedagogy to the technology” when using synchro­
nous videoconferencing.
The need to be better prepared to teach in the current pandemic era and the lack of
research on the use of videoconferencing systems in online learning and teaching were the
motivations for this study. We conducted an analytic evaluation of four widely used
videoconferencing systems, Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams (referred here as Teams), and
WhatsApp, with the intent to offer recommendations for their educational use. The disrup­
tion caused by the COVID-19 global health crisis required from teachers, students, and
parents a sudden and hasty reaction instead of a systematic and thoughtful transition to
online learning and teaching. This study aims to provide guidance to educators as they
respond and recover from this crisis and explore strategies to deliver online education.

Experiential e-learning as a framework for online learning and teaching

Experiential learning theory provides a distinctive perspective on the learning process,
which has a wide application to education including online learning and teaching.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 3

D. A. Kolb (1984) claimed experience is the primary source of learning and development
and introduced experiential education as a contemporary application of experiential
learning theory. He argued that in particular adult learners demand that their life and
professional experiences (e.g., work-related activities, family responsibilities, and previous
education) be incorporated into their learning. More than communication skills and
content knowledge, education systems should contribute to more advanced forms of
intellectual development and permeate the multiple dimensions of human development
demanded by today’s globalization and digital revolution (Correia, 2014).
Experiential learning theory defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created
through the transformation of experience” (D. A. Kolb, 1984, p. 38). The focus is on the process
of adaptation and learning as opposed to content or outcomes. Knowledge is continuously
created and recreated, “not an independent identity to be acquired or transmitted” (p. 39).
A. Kolb and Kolb (2005, p. 194) described experiential learning as “a process of constructing
knowledge that involves a creative tension among the four learning modes.” The four learning
modes—concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation—are organized into a cyclical pattern known as experiential learning
(Figure 1).
Through concrete experience, one observes and feels the world around them, while
reflective observation helps to make sense of that experience on a personal level. Abstract
conceptualization enables one to think and generate new concepts, understandings, and
strategies for action. Active experimentation gives opportunities to practice these concepts,
understandings, and strategies in novel situations, which lead to the next concrete experience.
D. A. Kolb (1984) argued that learners need to be fully immersed in new learning experi­
ences and embrace these experiences fully and openly by leaving behind their biases. Learners
should expose themselves to different perspectives and reflect on their learning and growth as
they go through these experiences. They must be able to relate to the new concepts and
integrate their observations in theories and models that support them. Instructional decisions
are then made, and educational problems are solved based on these theories (D. A. Kolb, 1984).

Concrete
experience

Active Reflective
experimentation observation

Abstract
conceptualization

Figure 1. Experiential learning cycle (D. A. Kolb, 1984, p. 42).

4 A. CORREIA ET AL.

Many online learning experiences deliver enormous amounts of information instead of

offering pedagogies and processes that might allow for the development of transferable
and professional skills (McLoughlin & Luca, 2002). This pedagogical tendency to privilege
information transmission over experience is a problem because employers expect colleges
and universities to prepare professionals who are not only knowledgeable but also able to
apply knowledge and skills into novel and unpredictable situations. Accordingly, online
classes need to offer experiential learning opportunities as activities that go beyond case
analyses and technical training. Kolb’s (1984) model of experiential learning to structure
learning activities provides a framework to integrate real-world applications into online
education. As a result, experiential e-learning is emerging as a pedagogy for online learning
and teaching (Carver et al., 2007; Correia, 2008; Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2005).
Experiential e-learning promises to bridge the gap between academic disciplines and the
practices that they inform. Experiential e-learning is often approached through case analy­
sis, role-playing, or computer simulations. These activities enable learners to apply what
they are learning to new situations and to learn by doing. But they lack the messiness of
reality because they neglect critical relationships that can be encountered only when
working in real contexts. Especially in more applied areas, such as educational technology,
online courses need to offer learning activities that push the boundaries and expose online
learners to real-world encounters with situations encountered in a professional setting.
Learners need real-world learning opportunities so that they leave online programs pre­
pared to deal with situations that occur in their professional activities. This assertion is
consistent with Doering’s (2007) claims about adventure learning’s potential to change the
face of the traditional classroom “by providing access to and the opportunity to interact
with authentic data, content, people, and real-world situations” (¶ 17).

Videoconferencing systems and the quality of the online learning and

teaching experience
Videoconferencing is a synchronous channel of communication that supports the trans­
formation of interactive voice, video, and data between two or more groups of people
(Gough, 2006; Wiesemes & Wang, 2010). The synchronous model enables both teachers
and students to communicate in real time from different physical locations, avoiding the
lower level of interaction and engagement caused by delayed feedback in asynchronous
communication (Karal et al., 2011; F. Martin et al., 2012). Research in distance education
has shown that videoconferencing systems provide real-time interaction, enable instant
feedback, promote learner-centered engagement, and offer new opportunities for colla­
boration in distance education (Kumar et al., 2015; Smyth, 2005). Therefore, videoconfer­
encing can be used as an effective teaching and communication tool in synchronous
distance education. Moreover, due to the multimedia capabilities of web-based video­
conferencing technology, teachers and students can express themselves using audio,
visual, and verbal communication with others. This reduces the ambiguity caused by text-
only communication and enhances psychological engagement, which potentially leads to
a performance level in collaborative tasks comparable to face-to-face communication
(Kock, 2005). Therefore, utilizing videoconferencing in distance education can create an
environment closer to the physical classroom (Karal et al., 2011) to support learning.
Similarly, Reaburn and McDonald (2017) claimed that videoconferencing systems support
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 5

the design and establishment of public and private spaces conducive to the creation of
communities of practice in higher education to facilitate innovation and change
management.
From a social constructivism and sociocultural theory perspective, videoconferencing
systems have the potential to positively impact the online learning and teaching experi­
ence. Social constructivism suggests that learning derives from learners’ interaction and
experiences with others (Hagstrom & Wertsch, 2004; Piaget, 1952). Learning happens in
a wide-ranging social system, and people’s learning and development are based on their
involvement in cultural activities. Wiesemes and Wang (2010) argued that the use of
videoconferencing broadens the boundaries of classrooms, mixes the existence of virtual
and real classrooms, and breaks the physical limitations of traditional classrooms. This
increases students’ interaction with their environment, peers, and instructor and expands
their learning experience.
Although videoconferencing can benefit distance education, learners’ perceptions of it
can impact their success (Candarli & Yuksel, 2012). A study conducted by Dogget (2008)
revealed that despite over 80% of students having a positive response to videoconferen­
cing, 80% of them claimed that they would feel more comfortable in a traditional class­
room. The quality of the videoconferencing system itself was one of the reasons behind
that observation. In 2011, Karal et al. (2011) reported a similar result: students identified
technical problems, such as frequent disconnections, low quality of sound and image, and
time lag between sound and image, as hindering their learning. It is undeniable that the
quality of the videoconferencing system in itself will influence the quality of interactions
and the overall learning experience (M. Martin, 2005). However, it is important to note that
in the last decade videoconferencing systems, in particular web-based systems similar to
Zoom, Skype, Teams, and WhatsApp, have evolved significantly. The current technology
offers higher quality image, sound, and connection, and the time lag between sound and
image has been reduced to 300 ms. (Smith, 2020). Currently, teachers and students have
more experience in using these systems for learning and teaching as well as in their
personal lives.
Using experiential e-learning as the framework for analysis, this study compared four
widely used videoconferencing systems in terms of general and learning-related features
and usability. The results of the analytic evaluation provide guidance when selecting an
effective videoconferencing system for educational purposes. We discuss new teaching
approaches and pedagogies as well as human agency made possible via videoconferen­
cing. We also offer a set of recommendations and suggestions for system improvements
to support learning.

Methodology
According to Scriven (1966), evaluation methods generally fall into two categories:
analytic and empirical. Empirical methods involve actual participants and assess how
well a system performs. Analytic methods analyze a system’s features and interpret what
characteristics affect its performance. Table 1 presents examples of analytic and empirical
evaluation methods (Rosson & Carroll, 2002). Although these examples are primarily used
for systems usability evaluation, they also can be applied to a system’s overall evaluation.
6 A. CORREIA ET AL.

Table 1. Examples of analytic and empirical evaluation methods (Rosson & Carroll, 2002, p. 230).
Type of method Example methods
Analytic evaluation: Investigations that involve modeling Claims analysis: system features are analyzed with respect
and analysis of a system’s features and their to positive and negative impacts.
implications for use. Usability inspection: a set of guidelines or an expert’s
general knowledge is used as a basis for identifying or
predicting usability problems.
User models: a representation of the mental structures and
activities assumed during use is developed and
analyzed for complexity, consistency, and so on.
Empirical evaluation: Investigations that involve Controlled experiment: one or more system features are
observation or other data collection from system users. manipulated to see effects on use.
Think-aloud experiment: users think out loud about their
goals, plans, and recreations as they work with
a system.
Field study: surveys or other types of user feedback are
collected from real-world usage settings.

In the current study, we conducted an analytic evaluation focused on usability inspection.

For example, usability inspection enables the identification of systems’ potential problems in
a short period and at a relatively low cost (Bias & Mayhew, 1994; Nielsen & Mack, 1994; Rosson
& Carroll, 2002). Because different contexts of use have different requirements for design
tradeoffs, Rosson and Carroll (2002) argued that using the contexts of use as the basis for
usability inspection can make the evaluation more targeted and accurate. We focused mainly
on online learning and teaching contexts where videoconferencing systems are used.

Selection of videoconferencing systems

To identify videoconferencing systems to evaluate in this study, we conducted a thorough
search for existing systems. We developed and used the following criteria to guide the
selection process. Videoconferencing systems to qualify for this analysis had to:

● offer a free version or free trial for users;

● be available in both web and application versions;
● be updated;
● be prevalent and widely used;
● have been used in educational contexts.

The selection process consisted of three steps to ensure comprehensiveness and reliability.
Firstly, through a comprehensive online search, each of us independently identified at least
three videoconferencing systems that best meet the selection criteria. Removing duplications,
seven videoconferencing systems were collected during this step. Secondly, we reviewed the
initially selected videoconferencing systems together and removed the systems that were
proposed only by only one of us. Two videoconferencing systems were excluded at this point.
Finally, we fully explored the functions of the remaining videoconferencing systems and
identified the final four videoconferencing systems to be evaluated. One videoconferencing
system was excluded because its audience is mainly limited to the People’s Republic of China
and the functions of its web and desktop versions are significantly reduced compared to its
mobile application version. As a result, we selected four prevalent and widely used
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 7

Author 1 Author 2 Author 3

Step 1: Identify
videoconferencing systems
retrieve from online search
Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp,
Cisco Webex, GoToMeeting, WeChat
(n = 7)
Step 2: Remove
videoconferencing systems
that only proposed by one
author (n = 2)
Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams,
WhatsApp, WeChat
(n = 5)
Step 3: Exclude
videoconferencing system
after fully exploring each
system’s functions (n = 1)
Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp
(n = 4)

Figure 2. Summary of the process used to select the videoconferencing systems to be evaluated.

videoconferencing systems, in the context of online education, for this study: Zoom, Skype,
Teams, and WhatsApp. Between February and April 2020, and in terms of number of users,
Zoom had 300 million daily meeting participants (Warren, 2020); Skype was used by
100 million people on a monthly basis and by 40 million people on a daily basis (Lardinois,
2020); Teams reported 75 million daily active users (Zaveri, 2020); and WhatsApp had 2 billion
users around the globe (WhatsApp, n.d). Figure 2 summarizes the process used to select the
videoconferencing systems evaluated in this study.

Data analysis strategies

We conducted a usability inspection to analyze the selected videoconferencing systems;
thus, a set of guidelines were required to guide the analysis. The analysis of the selected
videoconferencing systems was focused on three aspects: general features, learning-related
features, and usability, as presented below. We used the experiential e-learning framework
mainly to analyze the systems’ learning-related features and understand how these could
support the four experiential learning modes (D. A. Kolb, 1984): concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.
Strategy used to analyze systems’ general features
General features refer to a system’s use capability and restrictions. Specifically, in this
study, they included software version and type, compatibility (supported desktop, mobile,
and browser operating systems), cost, live meeting duration, and the number of partici­
pants allowed per meeting. These features are not directly related to learning or usability,
but they are the basic requirements based on which educators can make initial decisions.

Strategy used to analyze systems’ learning-related features

The learning-related features of a system are those directly related to online learning
activities. The learning-related features proposed by Wild and Wiggins (2006) were audio
(mute), video (turn off camera), recording and playback, screen and application sharing,
remote control (allow one specific user to access the system remotely and make selec­
tions, edits, and other modifications to the shared screen), file transfer, chat, annotation
8 A. CORREIA ET AL.

Table 2. Learning-related features and the experiential learning modes.

Experiential learning modes
Learning-related Concrete Reflective Abstract Active
features experience observation conceptualization experimentation
Audio (mute) + + +
Video (turn off camera) + + +
Recording and +
playback
Screen sharing + + +
Application sharing + + +
Remote control +
File transfer + +
Chat + + + +
Annotation tools + +
Breakout rooms + + +
Polling/Q&A tools + +
Virtual hand-raising + + + +
Instant reaction + + +
Caption + +

tools, breakout rooms, polling and question and answers capabilities, virtual hand-raising,
instant reaction and caption. The learning-related features were then cross-referenced
with the four experiential learning modes: concrete experience, reflective observation,
abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. The plus sign indicates the pre­
sence of the learning-related feature in the videoconferencing system and if this feature
supports each of the experiential learning modes (Table 2). We undertook this determina­
tion as a collaborative activity. The degree of agreement among us was high.

Strategy used to analyze systems’ usability

Usability is a quality attribute of system acceptability (Nielsen, 1993) and refers to the ease with
which users can learn to operate and use a system (IEEE, 1990). We adopted the Quality in Use
Integrated Measurement (QUIM) model proposed by Seffah et al. (2006) in this study as the
strategy of usability analysis. As a result, we used the following usability factors from the QUIM
model (Seffah et al., 2006, pp. 168–169):

● Efficiency as the ability of the system to allow users to use appropriate resources to
perform a specific task with the least amount of waste;
● Effectiveness as the capability of the system to allow users to complete specified
tasks with accuracy and completeness;
● Satisfaction refers to the users’ response in relation to their feelings while using the
system (e.g., happiness, frustration, and anger);
● Learnability relates to how easy it is to learn a system feature in order to achieve
a particular goal;
● Safety is concerned with whether a system limits the risk of harm to users or
damaging other resources, such as hardware or stored information;
● Trustfulness is the confidence a system offers to its users;
● Accessibility is the capability of a system to be used by users with some type of
disability (e.g., visual, hearing and psychomotor);
● Universality concerns on whether a system accommodates a diversity of users with
different cultural backgrounds (e.g., nationality and ethnicity);
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 9

● Usefulness relates to the system’s ability to allow users to solve real problems in an
acceptable way.

In regard to the usability criteria, based on the needs of the current study, a few criteria were
excluded (e.g., resource utilization, fault tolerance, load time) and others were combined
(e.g., privacy & security, and flexibility & controllability) from the original QUIM model (Seffah
et al., 2006). Customer service support was added as a new criterion. The usability criteria
used in this study were privacy and security, flexibility and controllability, simplicity, read­
ability, self-descriptiveness, user guidance, consistency, familiarity, minimal action, navig­
ability, and customer service support (Table 3).

Table 3. Usability criteria adapted from the QUIM model (Seffah et al., 2006, p. 171).
Criteria Description Sub-criteria
Privacy & security Whether users’ personal information is protected & End-to-end code
capability of the system to protect information and data Meeting entry protection
from unauthorized persons or systems. Preview
Background blur
Private conversation
Lock meeting
Waiting room
Enable/disable participants to
record a meeting
Allow participants to be
anonymous
Recording notification
Flexibility & Whether the system can be tailored to match users’ Virtual background
controllability personal preferences & whether users feel that they are System preference setting
in control of the system. Host controllability
Invitation methods
Apps integration
View options
Compatibility
Simplicity Whether irrelevant elements are removed from the user No extraneous elements on
interface without significant loss of information. videoconferencing interface
No significant information loss
Readability Ease with which visual content (e.g., text dialogues) can be Clear visual content
comprehended. Simple and understandable text
Dialogues
Self-descriptiveness Capability of the system to deliver its purpose and offer Visual support
clear user assistance on how it works. Textual assistance
User guidance Whether the user interface provides context-sensitive Error reminder
assistance to the user and meaningful feedback when
errors occur.
Consistency Degree of uniformity among user interface elements and Same-device consistency
whether they offer easy to understand metaphors to Cross-device consistency
users.
Familiarity Whether the user interface offers recognizable elements Follow user design convention
and interactions that the user can easily comprehend.
Minimal action Capability of the system to assist users in completing their Start a meeting
tasks in the least number of steps possible. Join a meeting
In-meeting invitation
Sharing
Instant interaction
Schedule a meeting
Collaboration
Leave a meeting
Navigability Whether users can move around in the system in a well- Clarity of navigation menu
organized way. Efficiency
Customer service Whether the system offers different ways to get help, if the Contact channels
support service is timely and the interaction is pleasant. Service time
10 A. CORREIA ET AL.

Table 4. Associations between usability factors and criteria in the QUIM model (adapted from Seffah
et al., 2006).
Factors
Criteria Efficiency Effectiveness Satisfaction Learnability Safety Trustfulness Accessibility Universality Usefulness
Privacy & security + + + +
Flexibility & + + + + + +
controllability
Simplicity + + +
Readability + +
Self-descriptiveness + + + +
User guidance + + + +
Consistency + + + + +
Familiarity + +
Minimal action + + + +
Navigability + + + + +
Customer service +
support

We created an analysis protocol to guide the analytical evaluation by assessing each

criterion and sub-criterion, as shown in Table 3. The plus sign in Table 4 indicates the
associations between usability factors and criteria based on the QUIM model. We completed
this determination as a collaborative activity. The degree of agreement was high.

Reliability process
We used a qualitative approach to establish consistency among our ratings through
extensive and frequent virtual discussions. Combined, we have extensive experience in
teaching, learning technologies, learning design, and human-computer interaction. To
reach agreement, we followed the following process.
First, we reviewed Wild and Wiggins’ (2006) and Seffah et al.’s (2006) instruments
individually for relevancy, clarity, and comprehensiveness in terms of what they were
intended to measure and the purpose of our study. After that, we met via Zoom and
thoroughly discussed both instruments and analyzed each item. The purpose of this
meeting was to identify the level of agreement or disagreement among us in relation
to the operational definitions of the dimensions included in each instrument. The output
from this stage was the final list of the criteria to be used for the analytical evaluation of
the four popular videoconferencing systems. We carried out this task by analyzing each
criterion or item and reaching consensus on to include it in the analytical evaluation or
not. This meant that the three of us had to be in agreement on which criterion to keep and
on which criterion to leave out and provide a rationale for our decision. We used the same
process to select the sub-criteria for the analysis.
Consensus-reaching was preferred over voting because we were committed to make
decisions that everyone actively supported, or at least could live with. We used the same
approach to decision-making throughout the rest of the analytical evaluation.

Results
In the following section, we present the results of the analytical evaluation. The analysis
compared the general features, learning-related features, and usability of each videocon­
ferencing systems selected for this study.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 11

Overview of general features

As shown in Table 5, all videoconferencing systems can be installed on a desktop
computer, a mobile, or tablet, and can be launched in web browsers. Skype can also
be installed on other devices such as Xbox and Alexa. However, WhatsApp must be
installed on a mobile device first before logging in on a desktop computer or web
browser.
Zoom, Skype, and Teams all support Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. In addition, Zoom
supports more operating systems (e.g., Android and Chrome OS) when compared to the
other three systems. On the other hand, WhatsApp cannot be used on desktop devices
with Linux. Zoom and WhatsApp support both the latest and the older iOS versions, while
Skype and Teams’ compatibility for Windows is better. It is worth noting that Zoom also
supports the Blackberry operating system. Moreover, compared with other software
systems, Skype supports only Microsoft Edge and the latest versions of Google Chrome,
and Skype for Web cannot be used on mobile phones or tablet devices.
Although we analyzed only the free versions of four videoconferencing systems, cost
is an important factor impacting users’ choices. WhatsApp is the only system totally
free. Skype is free for relatively small companies or organizations. If it is necessary to
upgrade the meeting to a larger group of participants, Skype for Business requires a fee.
Similarly, Zoom users can also upgrade the system capability by selecting a different
and more costly meeting plan. Even though the download of Teams is free, in order to
use it, users need a Microsoft 365 account with an appropriate Microsoft 365 license
plan.
The other two prerequisites when users choose videoconferencing systems are the max­
imum number of participants per meeting and the maximum duration for one group meet­
ing. Zoom free version supports unlimited one-to-one meetings and 40 min group meetings
with up to 100 people per meeting. Participants are forced to quit the group meeting after 40
min. For Skype users, up to 50 participants are allowed to join in one group meeting. Skype
offers 100 hr of group video calls per month with no more than 10 hr per day and a limit of 4
hr per individual video call. Once these limits are reached, the system will switch off and the
call will be converted into an audio call. On the other hand, Teams setup is relatively more
complicated. Up to 20 can participate in one video or audio call at the same time. Meetings on
Teams can hold up to 250 participants per meeting. For each meeting, the maximum length
of time depends on who is in the meeting and the type of authentication they use to join the
meeting. It ranges from 24 hr to 4 hr and then to 90 min. If the number of participants is more
than 250, users can change to a Live event, which permits up to 20,000 people joining in the
same event. Each live event can last up to 16 hr. The users of WhatsApp can enjoy unlimited
video and audio chats as long as the devices are connected to the Internet. However, only four
people can participate in one group meeting.

Features supporting learning

In order to analyze the learning-related features, we collected the data on whether each
videoconferencing system had (or not) learning-related features using the code 0 (the
system does not have this feature) and 1 (the system has this feature), as shown in Table 6.
 12

Table 5. Overview of the four videoconferencing systems.

Zoom Skype Teams WhatsApp
Software version 5.0.1 8.59.0.77 1.3.00.9271 2.2042
System (type) Web-based Web-based (Skype for Web) Web-based Web-based
Installed PC/mobile/tablet (Zoom Cloud Installed PC/mobile tablet/Xbox/Alexa Installed PC/mobile/tablet application (WhatsApp
Meeting) application application web)
Installed PC/
mobile/tablet
application
A. CORREIA ET AL.

Supported Mac OS X with mac OS 10.7 or later Mac OS X 10.10+ (Mac OS X 10.9 does not Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan+ Mac OS X 10.10+,
desktop Windows 10 (S Mode is not supported)/ support Skype version 8.49.0.49+) Windows Server 2012 R2+, Windows 10, or Windows Windows 8+
operating Windows 8 or 8.1/Windows 7/Windows Vista Windows Desktop 8.1 (64-bit, 32-bit) (64-bit, 32-bit)
systems with SP1+/Windows XP with SP3+ Windows 10 (version 1809) + Linux distribution capable of installing DEB or RPM
Ubuntu 12.04+ 64-bit Ubuntu 14.04+ (Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, 18.04 LTS, Fedora 30
Mint 17.1+ 64-bit Debian 8.0+ Workstation, RHEL 8 Workstation, CentOS 8)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4+ 64-bit OpenSUSE 13.3+
Oracle Linux 6.4+ 64-bit Fedora Linux 24+
CentOS 6.4+
Fedora 21+
OpenSUSE 13.2+
ArchLinux (64-bit only)
Supported mobile iOS 8.0+ iOS 10.0+ iOS 10.0+ iOS 9.0+
operating Android 5.0+ Android 4.0.4+ Android 8.0+ Android 2.3.7+
systems Blackberry 10 OS 2.1+
Supported IE 11+ Microsoft Edge Internet Explorer 11 Google Chrome
browsers Microsoft Edge 12+ Google Chrome (latest versions) Microsoft Edge Safari
Safari 7+ Not supported on mobile phones or tablets RS2+ Firefox
Firefox 27+ Google Chrome Opera
Google Chrome 30+ Firefox Microsoft Edge
Safari 11.1+
Cost Basic: Free Skype is free, but Skype for Business has Free download Free
Pro: $14.99 per host per month a cost Needs a Microsoft 365 account with the appropriate
Business: $19.99 per host per month Microsoft 365 license plan (with free trial)
Enterprise: $19.99 per host per month
Live meeting One-to-one meetings: unlimited Group video calls: 100 hr per month with no Meetings: The maximum length depends the type of Unlimited
duration Group meetings: 40 min more than 10 hr per day and a limit of 4 hr authentication
per individual video call Live events: 16 hr
Participants per Up to 100 Up to 50 Meetings: up to 250 Up to 4
meeting Live events: up to 20,000
Video or audio call from chat: up to 20
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 13

Table 6. Learning-related features of the videoconferencing systems.

Learning-related features Zoom Skype Teams WhatsApp
Audio (mute) 1 1 1 1
Video (turn off camera) 1 1 1 1
Recording and playback 1 1 1 0
Screen sharing 1 1 1 0
Application sharing 1 1 1 0
Remote control 1 0 1 0
File transfer 1 1 1 1
Chat 1 1 1 1
Annotation tools 1 0 1 0
Breakout rooms 1 0 0 0
Polling/Q&A tools 1 1 1 0
Virtual hand-raising 1 0 0 0
Instant reaction 1 1 0 0
Captioning 1 1 1 0
Note. 0 = the system does not have this feature; 1 = the system has this feature.

Table 7. Support of videoconferencing software for four experiential learning modes.

Experiential learning modes Zoom Skype Teams WhatsApp
Concrete experience 100% 75% 75% 33%
Reflective observation 100% 75% 75% 25%
Abstract conceptualization 100% 67% 67% 33%
Active experimentation 100% 73% 73% 36%

As can be seen, Zoom has the highest number of learning-related features, and WhatsApp
has the lowest.
According to the established protocol for learning-related features analysis, we scored
how the videoconferencing systems supported (or not) the four experiential learning
modes. We followed this protocol because the videoconferencing systems were analyzed
from an online learning and teaching perspective and not merely from an application
design perspective. Consequently, the scores of the learning features related to each
experiential learning mode presented in Table 2 were added up and converted into
a percentage for each videoconferencing systems (Table 7). For example, 100% means
that the system has all the learning features associated with one of the experiential
learning modes. On the other hand, 25% means that the system exhibits only one fourth
of the learning features associated with a particular experiential learning mode.
It is clear from Table 7 that Zoom is the most supportive system for each experiential
learning mode, while WhatsApp is the least supportive. Skype and Teams offer exactly the
same support in relation to each learning mode. The interpretation is offered in the next
paragraphs.
In regard to supporting concrete experience, the screen and application sharing and
in-meeting file transfer features of Zoom, Skype, and Teams assist educators to use
accompanying materials during their lessons. On the other hand, WhatsApp supports
only file transfer during the meeting. Both Zoom and Teams offer annotation tools like
whiteboards, which make it easier for educators to explain content in order to facilitate
learners’ understanding. The instant reaction function of Zoom and Skype, and polling
and question and answer functions of Zoom, Skype, and Teams promote interactive
learning and engagement during the online learning experiences. In addition, educators
14 A. CORREIA ET AL.

can create up to 50 breakout rooms in Zoom and assign learners into groups for discus­
sion and activities. Learners can also use the virtual hand-raising function to call their
teacher for help or to request to talk during the lesson. Lastly, Zoom, Skype, and Teams
can add captioning for talks in different languages, which can effectively solve accessi­
bility issues and language barriers.
To support reflective observation, educators are able to use the recording and playback
features in Zoom, Skype, and Teams. The recordings of the online learning experiences are
made available to learners, who can playback the teachers’ lecture, peers’ presentations,
or any guest speaker talks. Similarly, the captioning function can support learners’ under­
standing of the content taught. Learners may also need to ask questions to the instructor
and/or share comments with the learning community as a result of their own reflections.
Along the same lines, the chat feature, which is supported by all four systems and virtual
hand-raising, which is only supported by Zoom, may be useful as well. Additionally, the
annotation tools offered by Zoom and Teams are useful to capture reflections and keep
comments.
Regarding support of abstract conceptualization, conversations among peers are of
critical importance because they permit knowledge construction through interactions
with each other and the content. Among the selected videoconferencing systems, Zoom
is the one that offers relatively more support to peer discussions with breakout rooms
combined with remote control. Synchronous discussions can take place, and students can
request remote control from the teacher and share their screens with their peers to
facilitate discussion, explain a particular point of view, or offer a demonstration.
Finally, when learners engage in active experimentation, they may need to work as
part of a team or in an individual project that requires multiple conversations with
different stakeholders. For example, a design team that works in an educational pro­
blem will use a videoconferencing system to present their solutions. Features like audio
(mute), video (turn off camera), screen and application sharing, remote control, file
transfer, annotation tools, and instant reaction including virtual hand-raising and inter­
active functions are indispensable to support effective live presentations. In particular,
the remote control function in Zoom and Teams is an essential feature to support
demonstrations, collaboration, and knowledge construction. This function enables lear­
ners to access the system remotely and make selections, edits, and other modifications
to a shared screen.

Usability
When analyzing usability, using the sub-criteria presented in Table 3, we independently
scored each criterion from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied). After that, we
aggregated the scores and averaged them to obtain the final scores of each criterion for
each videoconferencing system (Table 8).
Then, we added up the scores of the criteria associated with each factor and converted
them into a percentage for each videoconferencing system (Table 9). As a result, we were
able to conduct a cross-system comparison between usability criteria and factors. For
example, 90% on efficiency means that the system scored 9 out of the 10 for this factor,
and 35% on usefulness means that the system scored 3.5 out of 10. A system would have
100% on each factor if it reached the full marks on each of them, for example, efficiency =
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 15

Table 8. Total usability criteria scores for the four videoconferencing systems.
Criteria Zoom Skype Teams WhatsApp
Privacy & security 4.5 2.5 4 1.5
Flexibility & controllability 4 3 3.5 2
Simplicity 4 4.5 4.5 3.5
Readability 4.5 4.5 4.5 5
Self-descriptiveness 4.5 5 4 5
User guidance 3 5 4.5 4.5
Consistency 4 5 4 2.5
Familiarity 5 5 5 5
Minimal action 5 5 5 4.5
Navigability 4 4.5 2.5 4
Customer service support 5 4 2.5 2.5
Total (out of 55) 47.5 48.0 44.0 40.0
Note. Original scores of each feature are given: 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied).

Table 9. Usability evaluation of the four videoconferencing systems.

Factors Zoom Skype Teams WhatsApp
Efficiency 90% 95% 75% 85%
Effectiveness 80% 83% 67% 57%
Satisfaction 85% 85% 78% 68%
Learnability 85% 98% 90% 83%
Safety 85% 75% 80% 40%
Trustfulness 88% 80% 76% 70%
Accessibility 83% 91% 81% 78%
Universality 81% 85% 79% 70%
Usefulness 85% 55% 75% 35%
Total % 86.4% 87.3% 80.0% 72.7%
Note. Full marks: efficiency = 10, effectiveness = 15, satisfaction = 20, learnability = 30,
safety = 10, trustfulness = 25, accessibility = 40, universality = 40, usefulness = 10.

10, effectiveness = 15, satisfaction = 20, learnability = 30, safety = 10, trustfulness = 25,
accessibility = 40, universality = 40, usefulness = 10, for a total of 200.
The final analysis shows that the usability of Skype is the best among the four systems,
followed by Zoom, Teams, and WhatsApp. The biggest differences seem to relate to the
efficiency, effectiveness, safety, satisfaction, and usefulness usability factors.
For the efficiency factor, because the operation procedures among the systems are
similar (e.g., most actions can be completed within 3 steps), navigability becomes the
crucial element in determining the efficiency of a system. Among the four selected
systems, Skype’s navigability is the best due to the simplicity and the fluency of switching
among videoconferencing, chat, and sharing features. All the three features are presented
in the same operation window, and by clicking the associated icons, users do not get lost
easily. In contrast, the navigability of Teams could be improved the most. Although the
setup of its operation window is similar to Skype, the function of each navigation icon on
the left of its operation window is not clearly defined.
In terms of effectiveness, Skype performance is the highest ranked. Besides the efficient
navigability mentioned above, the design of the user interface and the locations of the
different icons are the most consistent and similar across different devices. Although
Skype flexibility and controllability are reduced due to its limited app integration, host
control, and view changing, users still can personalize their user experience by changing
virtual backgrounds, adjusting system preference, and sending different forms of
16 A. CORREIA ET AL.

videoconferencing invitations. However, when it comes to WhatsApp, the situation is

reversed. This is primarily because of WhatsApp’s low performance on flexibility and
controllability. WhatsApp is the only system that does not allow users to change their
virtual backgrounds. Another important drawback of WhatsApp is its consistency. Only its
mobile phone version has the videoconferencing function. When users want to use
WhatsApp in a desktop, tablet, or web version, they must log in through its mobile
phone version, which is extremely inconvenient.
Safety, which includes privacy and security, is also a major concern when using
videoconferencing systems for online learning and teaching because of learners’ privacy.
The selected systems vary on their ways to protect users’ privacy and secure access to
virtual meeting rooms. For example, Zoom provides the highest level of end-to-end
encryption. A specific identifier and password can be created for each meeting, and the
host of the meeting has the authority decide who can join in the meeting and when.
However, in WhatsApp, because users can have audio or video calls only with people in
their contact list, there are no extra protective settings for each meeting.
When compared with the other two systems, the higher levels of satisfaction experi­
ence by users of Zoom and Skype are due to the high scores on customer service support.
These systems offer different ways to get assistance, the service is timely, and the
interaction is friendly.
The high performance of Zoom in protecting users’ privacy and security access also
contributes to its high usefulness. Additionally, Zoom can be tailored to suit users’
preferences. For example, users can not only change the system preferences but also
personalize their meeting room, including changing the virtual backgrounds and control­
ling the participant’s options of available functions. In contrast, WhatsApp has relatively
lower Usefulness because of the insufficient privacy and security protection and also due
to the limited options to customize each meeting and the limited authority of the meet­
ing hosts.

Discussion
The intent of this study was to explain how four widely used videoconferencing systems
support online education. Since many educators may not be very experienced with
videoconferencing, this analytical evaluation is able to provide recommendations for
each of the systems evaluated regarding its efficacy to support learning. This way,
educators will have an in-depth knowledge of each system and be able to choose the
one that better supports their online teaching needs. Moreover, since the study used
experiential e-learning as a framework, online instructors could also explore this proven
online pedagogy when teaching and supporting their students’ learning. Yet, as some
authors (e.g., T. Anderson, 2008; Lai, 2017) have pointed out, the use of videoconferencing
systems should not be a panacea for addressing online education connectedness and
interaction issues. It is recommended to use a multitude of communication channels
(synchronously and asynchronously) to increase access and opportunities for commu­
nication. T. Anderson (2008, p. 121) concluded that when videoconferencing systems are
used exclusively to teach, they offer:
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 17

A relatively impoverished form of distance education compared to distance programming

that uses a blend of communication technologies. While VC [videoconferencing] can be more
effectively used for classroom enhancement activities (even in distance education contexts)
a much more student-centered environment could be developed using the affordances of
a diverse set of networking tools.

With the global outbreak of COVID-19, colleges and universities have had to employ
videoconferencing systems to contain the spread of the virus. As a result, classes have
moved to virtual and online formats, including lab-based courses and clinical subjects.
According to Moszkowicz et al. (2020), anatomical and medical education can benefit
from the use of these systems since they add pedagogical value. One of the reasons for for
using videoconferencing systems in these classes is the high absenteeism among medical
students for in-person classes that may be overcome with alternatives to deliver instruc­
tion. Moreover, videoconferencing systems build the capacity of colleges and universities
to offer academic support that does not require a physical presence on-campus. For
example, Rennar-Potacco and Orellana (2018) described the use of videoconferencing to
support an online program in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics with
respect to its technical, pedagogical, staffing, training, and marketing needs.
The results of this analysis suggest a link between the learning experience and the
chosen system. For example, Zoom, Skype, and Teams support screen sharing, application
sharing, and in-meeting file transfer, which provides educators with a plethora of ways to
exchange and share educational materials. Zoom breakout rooms combined with remote
control support small-group live discussions and group activities. Another example is the
Skype chat feature. Contrary to Zoom, Skype chat supports image files in both animated
and static formats as well as short videos. This functionality makes communication
between teacher and students and among students richer and more expressive.
Conversely, Zoom chat permits only a limited number of emojis and file sharing.
Lawson et al. (2010, p. 302) claimed that “other uses of videoconferencing equipment
in higher education have sought to move beyond traditional styles of teaching and
learning and develop new pedagogies appropriate for the more innovative potential of
the technology.” For example, videoconferencing systems support learner-centered vir­
tual classrooms and learning activities such as role-plays, simulations, and group work.
They create interactions that make students forget the physical distance (R. Anderson
et al., 2003; Smyth, 2005).
As distance education as a field responds to the disruption caused by the COVID-19
pandemic and videoconferencing systems improve their functionality, it is important not
to forget human agency in this transformation. Humans act and make decisions based on
their experiences, reflections, self-determination, and motivation. The design and optimi­
zation of web-based videoconferencing systems should advance toward a more human-
centered approach. For example, the new generation of web-based videoconferencing
systems should give learners and educators alike opportunities to make choices and take
advantage of the system to improve the virtual learning experience, instead of limiting it
because of restricted system functionality.
Another related issue is how to mitigate the distance that may hinder interactions
between teachers and students, students and students, and students and content is one
of the important challenges for the future of videoconferencing systems (R. Anderson et al.,
18 A. CORREIA ET AL.

2003). We therefore present a set of recommendations and suggestions for designers and
developers of videoconferencing systems to be used in learning, teaching, and training.

Zoom
As a cloud-based videoconferencing system that has developed rapidly over the past
couple of years, Zoom stands out among the selected systems due to its relativity higher
cost and performance ratio. Compared with the other systems, Zoom free version best
supports learners to incorporate their experiences into online learning by offering the
most learning-related features that correlate to the four experiential learning modes (see
Tables 6 and 7). Although in terms of the maximum number of participants for each
meeting, Teams performs better than Zoom, due to its free trial time limit, users cannot
utilize this advantage for a long time without cost. Therefore, under the premise of long-
term use and low cost, Zoom is suitable for small and middle-sized organizations and
cheaper if users need to meet only for less than or equal to 40 min. Although Zoom’s
overall usability is not the highest ranked in this analysis, if users require the highest levels
of safety, trustfulness, and usefulness, they should definitely choose Zoom.
Under the premise of good overall performance, Zoom’s usability is relatively weaker
when compared to the other systems. Therefore, usability should be the primary focus of
its improvement, in particular regarding user guidance. When operational errors occur,
clear and sufficient user guidance, such as text reminders, should be provided so that
users can correct their incorrect operations in time without confusion. This can improve
the user’s satisfaction with the system and improve the overall online learning experience.

Skype
If users value a system’s overall usability, Skype stands out from the selected systems. For
the nine factors contributing to a system’s usability, Skype scores highest (85% or higher –
see Tables 8 and 9) on five of them, which are efficiency, satisfaction, learnability,
accessibility, and universality. This means that Skype can enable users to achieve their
desired results accurately and completely by spending fewer resources. Additionally,
Skype can hold up to 50 participants per meeting and scores second in each experiential
learning mode (see Table 7). Therefore, Skype is an option for small organizations seeking
a videoconferencing system with good usability to support online learning. However, the
primary drawbacks of Skype are its usefulness and safety. If these are two critical factors
for users, then they should consider Skype carefully.
Even though Skype has the highest usability scores (see Tables 8 and 9), it could
increase its performance by improving privacy and security and flexibility and controll­
ability. Unlike flexibility and controllability that cater to a learner’s need for autonomy,
privacy and security protect learners’ personal information and safeguard the learning
experience. Therefore, such an improvement would provide a safer and more trustworthy
distance education environment. Besides, improving the system’s flexibility and controll­
ability has the potential to increase learners’ autonomy and motivation.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 19

Teams
Teams is a solid cross-platform tool. A total of 250 participants can join in one regular meeting,
but the meeting length depends on the type of authentication. Teams’ system provides many
functions for learners, such as a well-developed chat function, captioning, and remote control
(see Table 6). While Teams does not support breakout rooms during a meeting and virtual
hand-raising, it may not be suitable for times where students need to be divided into small
groups for discussion or teamwork. As for usability, the system ranks high on learnability (85%
or higher—see Table 9), but its effectiveness and usefulness are unsatisfactory mainly because
its navigation bars are sometimes complicated and confusing.
With regard to customer service support and navigability, Teams ranked low (see Table 8).
The current customer support from Teams has difficulty in helping to solve their specific issues
with the system in a timely fashion. Therefore, a pressing improvement is to optimize
customer service and provide better user support so that users can use its features with
a lower level of difficulty. Along the same lines, navigability is an issue with Teams.
Improvements in the clarity of the navigation menu and system organization are necessary.

WhatsApp
WhatsApp is an efficient system with high navigability and minimal actions to set up
a videoconference. The system user interface is simple and consistent, visually self-
descriptive, and offers textual assistants, as well as user guidance when errors occur.
Even beginners of this system will learn it quickly. Consequently, efficiency and learn­
ability are the two highest scored usability factors of WhatsApp (see Table 9). When
compared to the other systems, the biggest advantage of WhatsApp is cost (see Table 5).
The system allows up to four people to communicate for unlimited time across the globe
at no cost. However, compared to Zoom, Skype, and Teams, WhatsApp is inferior in
creating and supporting online teaching and learning (see Table 6). Because WhatsApp
offers only audio, video, chat, and file transfer functions, it may be suitable only for small
group discussions and mini-scale conferences. In addition, the poor scores for privacy and
security (see Table 8) puts WhatsApp at a disadvantage when supporting online learning
and protecting learners.
WhatsApp has the lowest usability scores (see Tables 8 and 9), in particular regarding
privacy and security, flexibility and controllability, consistency, and customer service
support. These are the necessary areas for improvement. Additionally, the current version
of WhatsApp does not support desktops or desktop devices, which makes communication
between teachers and students and among peers more cumbersome. For WhatsApp to
be used more broadly for educational purposes, it needs to include additional function­
ality such as screen and application sharing, remote control, file transfer, and annotation
tools. Besides, increasing the system’s privacy and security should be the top priority for
system optimization.

Conclusion
As Calvert (2005) explained, correspondence education was the first and widely used
model of distance education, which then evolved to using audio and videoconferencing
20 A. CORREIA ET AL.

to teach students in remote areas who could not come physically to schools and
campuses. The COVID-19 pandemic is pressing educators around the work to rethink
distance education and bring back some of these early models as well as expanding them
to kindergarten to 12th grade school settings. But such resurgence is also pushing
distance education as a field to reimagine these models. New teaching approaches and
pedagogies, such as experiential e-learning, are positioning videoconferencing systems at
the center of this advancement. This study offers current insights into a larger body of
literature on videoconferencing systems and the quality of the online learning and
teaching experience, in particular about web-based systems like Zoom, Skype, Teams,
and WhatsApp.
With the growing need for innovation in distance education, especially under the
current pandemic situation, web-based videoconferencing systems will mature into
more comprehensive systems with the human experience at the core of their function­
ality. Schools and universities will undertake intense organizational renewal and put in
place bottom-up processes (e.g., informed by student voices). Informal and experiential
learning will be essential to the reimagining of distance education. “We learn this
together” will join the “We are in this together” mantra with educators and learners
around the world informing the creation of the new generation of web-based videocon­
ferencing systems. Potential features of these systems are, as follows, just to mention
a few:

● Offer high reliability in protecting participants real identity.

● Make available touch screen function for desktop computers and mobile devices
(e.g., use fingers to write on a whiteboard).
● Refocus the central role of audio and video and expand the systems to incorporate
social media features.
● Maximize the integration of augmented video applications that allow for the use of
filters, image manipulation, high-quality still, and animated virtual backgrounds.
● Support 3D augmented reality (e.g., support the use of 3D glasses).
● Offers swift and reliable customer technical support.

In their extensive review of distance education, Zawacki-Richter and Naidu (2016, p. 245)
found three “waves” of research perspective in this field: “(1) consolidation of distance
education institutions and instructional design; (2) quality assurance and student support,
and (3) the virtual university, and online interaction and learning.” They went on predict­
ing that “the future for distance education looks bright and promising. In fact, there has
never been a better time to be in the field of open, flexible, distance and online education
than now!” (p. 264). The disruption that educators and learners are experiencing in 2020
due to a global health crisis and social distancing creates a drive to push the boundaries of
distance education models and calls for the thoughtful optimization of videoconferencing
systems to support learning.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 21

Notes on contributors
Ana-Paula Correia is an associate professor of learning technologies and the director of the Center
on Education and Training for Employment at The Ohio State University. Correia’s research is
focused on learning technologies, learning design, and curriculum development. Her work has
been published in 55 peer-reviewed journals and books.
Chenxi Liu is a doctoral student of learning technologies at The Ohio State University and a graduate
research assistant at the Center on Education and Learning for Employment. Liu worked as
a language teacher and TV director. Her research interests include mobile learning, educational
technology design, and learning experience design.
Fan Xu is a doctoral student of learning technologies at The Ohio State University and a graduate
research assistant at the Center on Education and Learning for Employment. Xu has worked as an
instructional designer for online courses and training. Her research interests include instructional
design, computational thinking, and learning analytics.

ORCID
Ana-Paula Correia http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0806-7835

References
Al-Samarraie, H. (2019). A Scoping review of videoconferencing systems in higher education:
Learning paradigms, opportunities, and challenges. International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4037
Anderson, R., Beavers, J., VanDeGrift, T., & Videon, F. (2003). Videoconferencing and presentation
support for synchronous distance learning. In EP Innovations (Ed.), 33rd Annual Frontiers in
Education Conference (pp. F3F–13). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2003.1264746
Anderson, T. (2008). Is videoconferencing the killer app for K12 distance education? Journal of
Distance Education, 22(2), 109–124. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/18
Andrews, T., & Klease, G. (1998). Challenges of multisite video conferencing: The development of an
alternative teaching/learning model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 88–97.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1902
Bias, R. G., & Mayhew, D. J. (Eds.). (1994). Cost-justifying usability. Academic Press. https://dl.acm.org/
doi/book/10.5555/186524
Calvert, J. (2005). Distance education at the crossroads. Distance Education, 26(2), 227–238. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01587910500168876
Candarli, D., & Yuksel, H. G. (2012). Students’ perceptions of video-conferencing in the classrooms in
higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.06.663
Carver, R., King, R., Hannum, W., & Fowler, B. (2007). Toward a model of experiential elearning.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 247–256. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no3/
hannum.pdf
Correia, A.-P. (2008). Moving from theory to real-world experiences in an e-learning community.
Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4 (4).Article 2. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol4/
iss4/2/
Correia, A.-P. (2014). Creating scurriculum within the context of an enterprise. In M. Gosper &
D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum Models for the 21st Century: Using Learning Technologies in Higher
Education (pp. 113–134). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-7366-4_7
Doering, A. (2007). Adventure learning: Situation learning in an authentic context. Innovate: Journal
of Online Education, 3 (6).Article 4. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol3/iss6/4
22 A. CORREIA ET AL.

Doggett, A. M. (1998). The videoconferencing classroom: What do students think? Journal of

Industrial Teacher Education, 44(4), 29–41. https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v44n4/dog
gett.html
Dudding, C. C. (2009). Digital videoconferencing: Applications across the disciplines. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 30(3), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108327449
Foronda, C., & Lippincott, C. (2014). Graduate nursing students’ experience with synchronous,
interactive videoconferencing within online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15
(2), 69–70. https://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-issue.html?i=p54c3c288a3835
Gough, M. (2006). Video conferencing over IP: Configure, secure, and troubleshoot. Syngress
Publishing. https://www.elsevier.com/books/video-conferencing-over-ip-configure-secure-and-
troubleshoot/gough/978-1-59749-063-4
Hagstrom, F., & Wertsch, J. (2004). Grounding social identity for professional practice. Topics in
Language Disorders, 3(24), 162–173. 10.1097/00011363-200407000-00004
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages
online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09588220500335455
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, M. A. (2020, March 27). The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/
articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
IEEE. (1990). IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology. IEEE Standard 610.12-1990
IEEE (Technical report). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.1990.101064
Karabulut, A., & Correia, A.-P. (2008). Skype, Elluminate, Adobe Connect, and iVisit: A comparison of
web-based video conferencing systems for learning and teaching. In K. McFerrin, R. Wagner,
R. Carlsen, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education 2008 (pp. 481–484). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
https://www.learntechlib.org/noaccess/27212/
Karal, H., Çebi, A., & Turgut, Y. E. (2011). Perceptions of students who take synchronous courses
through video conferencing about distance education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(4), 276–293. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v10i4/10428.pdf
Khalid, M. S., & Hossan, M. I. (2016). Usability evaluation of a video conferencing system in
a university’s classroom. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer and
Information Technology (ICCIT) (pp. 184–190). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCITECHN.2016.
7860192
Knox, D. M. (1997). A review of the use of video-conferencing for actuarial education: A three-year
case study. Distance Education, 18(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791970180204
Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication
apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 48(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.2005.849649
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning
in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/40214287
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Prentice Hall.
Kumar, C. B., Potnis, A., & Gupta, S. (2015). Video conferencing system for distance education. In
Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE UP Section Conference on Electrical Computer and Electronics (UPCON)
(pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/upcon.2015.7456682
Lai, K. W. (2017). Pedagogical practices of NetNZ teachers for supporting online distance learners.
Distance Education, 38(3), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1371830
Lai, K.W., & Pratt, K. (2009). Technological constraints and implementation barriers of using video­
conferencing for virtual teaching in New Zealand secondary schools. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 17(4),505–522. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/28282/
Lardinois, F. (2020, March 30). Microsoft Teams is coming to consumers - but Skype is here to stay.
TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/30/microsoft-teams-is-coming-to-consumers-but-
skype-is-here-to-stay/
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 23

Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J., & Cullum-Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education
videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 295–314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2010.513761
Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual
classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 227–261.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1174
Martin, M. (2005). Seeing is believing: The role of videoconferencing in distance learning. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 36(3), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00471.x
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2002). A learner-centered approach to developing team skills through
web-based learning and assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5),571–582.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00292
Milman, N. B. (2020, March 30). This is emergency remote teaching, not just online teaching.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/03/30/this-is-emergency-remote-
teaching-not-just.html
Moszkowicz, D., Duboc, H., Dubertret, C., Roux, D., & Bretagnol, F. (2020). Daily medical education for
confined students during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A simple videoconference
solution. Clinical Anatomy, 33(6), 927–928. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23601
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-21512-1
Nielsen, J., & Mack, R. L. (Eds.). (1994). Usability inspection methods. John Wiley & Sons.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Co. https://
doi.org/10.1037/11494-000
Reaburn, P., & McDonald, J. (2017). Creating and facilitating communities of practice in higher
education: Theory to practice in a regional Australian university. In J. McDonald & A. Cater-Steel
(Eds.), Communities of practice (pp. 121–150). Springer.
Rehn, N., Maor, D., & McConney, A. (2016). Investigating teacher presence in courses using synchro­
nous videoconferencing. Distance Education, 37(3), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.
2016.1232157
Rennar-Potacco, D., & Orellana, A. (2018). Academically supporting STEM students from a distance
through videoconferencing: Lessons learned. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(2),
131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1446121
Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2002). Usability engineering: Scenario–based development of human–
computer interaction. Academic Press.
Scriven, M. (1966). The methodology of evaluation (ED4014001). Purdue University. ERIC. https://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED014001.pdf
Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R. B., & Padda, H. K. (2006). Usability measurement and metrics:
A consolidated model. Software Quality Journal, 14(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-
006-7600-8
Smith. E. (2020, March 11). Why conference call technology never works. Motherboard Tech by Vice.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3mxyw/why-conference-call-technology-never-works
Smyth, R. (2005). Broadband videoconferencing as a tool for learner-centred distance learning in
higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00499.x
Sondak, N. E., & Sondak, E. M. (1995). Video conferencing: The next wave for international business
communication. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Languages and Communication for
World Business and the Professions (pp. 1–10). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/80886/
Trust, T. (2020, April 2). The 3 biggest remote teaching concerns we need to solve now. EdSurge.
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-04-02-the-3-biggest-remote-teaching-concerns-we-need-
to-solve-now
Warren, T. (2020, April 23). Zoom grows to 300 million meeting participants despite security
backlash. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/23/21232401/zoom-300-million-users-
growth-coronavirus-pandemic-security-privacy-concerns-response
WhatsApp. (n.d.). About WhatsApp. https://www.whatsapp.com/about/
Wiesemes, R., & Wang, R. (2010). Video conferencing for opening classroom doors in initial teacher
education: Sociocultural processes of mimicking and improvisation. International Journal of
 24 A. CORREIA ET AL.

Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 6(1), 28–42. https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/seminar/

article/view/2456
Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2005). Reflections on teaching and learning online: Quality program
design, delivery and support issues from a cross-global perspective. Distance Education, 26(3),
385–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500291496
Wild, D. J., & Wiggins, G. D. (2006). Videoconferencing and other distance education techniques in
chemoinformatics teaching and research at Indiana University. Journal of Chemical Information
and Modeling, 46(2), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci050297q
Zaveri, P. (2020, April 29). Microsoft Teams now has 75 million daily active users, adding 31 million in
just over a month. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-teams-hits-75-
million-daily-active-users-2020-4#
Zawacki-Richter, O., & Naidu, S. (2016). Mapping research trends from 35 years of publications in Distance
Education. Distance Education, 37(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1185079

View publication stats