VoiceThread is an online tool integrated into Blackboard that allows faculty and students to create multimedia conversations around presentations. Users can add audio or video narration and contribute comments using text, voice, or video, enabling asynchronous dialogue. It is often used for narrated lectures, collaborative projects, and virtual demonstrations, and can support interaction and accessibility in online and hybrid courses.
Unlike traditional media servers that primarily store and stream content, VoiceThread incorporates discussion features by combining slides, images, documents, and videos into a single platform. These presentations can be embedded into Blackboard courses to provide opportunities for engagement and collaboration.
NIU adopted VoiceThread in 2018 to help faculty create interactive, multimedia discussions that go beyond text-only formats. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was widely used by faculty to share narrated presentations before Kaltura Media Server became the primary tool for video content.
Usage data for VoiceThread from the past three years were collected in December 2025. The dataset includes the number of courses and faculty who used the VoiceThread tool, with this information aggregated by college. Student data were available by year but not by college.
| College | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business (CBUS) | 13 | 14 | 13 |
| Education (CEDU) | 21 | 20 | 27 |
| Engineering and Engineering Technology (CEET) | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Health and Human Sciences (CHHS) | 43 | 40 | 31 |
| Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) | 35 | 33 | 36 |
| Visual and Performing Arts (CVPA) | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 116 | 110 | 110 |
| College | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business (CBUS) | 30 | 35 | 21 |
| Education (CEDU) | 39 | 42 | 30 |
| Engineering and Engineering Technology (CEET) | 8 | 8 | 9 |
| Health and Human Sciences (CHHS) | 177 | 171 | 91 |
| Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) | 53 | 31 | 45 |
| Visual and Performing Arts (CVPA) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 308 | 287 | 196 |
| 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 2,929 | 2,684 | 2,650 |
VoiceThread continues to be used across all major NIU colleges, with Health and Human Sciences (especially Nursing) historically accounting for the largest share of sections, followed by Education, Liberal Arts and Sciences, Business, and Engineering & Technology. Course‑level adoption spans undergraduate and graduate offerings and multiple formats (lecture, clinical/practicum, lab, and online/hybrid), with repeated use across terms indicating ongoing integration rather than one‑time pilots. Year over year, section counts have shifted: CHHS declined most markedly from 2023 to 2025, while other colleges show smaller fluctuations, resulting in an overall decrease in sections in 2025. Overall, VoiceThread remains present across the curriculum, but usage patterns have shifted as CHHS/Nursing activity tapered, while usage in other colleges has remained steady or varied modestly by term.
To gain a more in depth understanding of the amount of time and the types of engagement faculty and students have with VoiceThread, additional data were collected. These data included the following:
| Metric | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minutes | 810 | 551 | 519 |
| Thread Count | 50.21 | 30.68 | 32.93 |
| Page Count | 674.34 | 351.22 | 307.77 |
| Comments | 648.28 | 398.42 | 398.57 |
| Metric | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minutes | 597 | 417 | 286 |
| Thread Count | 0.95 | 1.30 | 1.82 |
| Page Count | 4.10 | 4.89 | 6.33 |
| Comments | 2.78 | 2.66 | 4.24 |
From 2023 to 2025, VoiceThread usage shows distinct patterns for faculty and students. Faculty usage declined overall, with average minutes dropping from 810 in 2023 to 519 in 2025, alongside substantial decreases in thread and page creation. While faculty comments decreased sharply from 2023 to 2024, they remained stable in 2025, suggesting continued interaction even as content creation declined. In contrast, student usage also declined in total minutes (from 597 to 286), while measures of engagement increased modestly: average thread counts, page counts, and comments rose steadily across the three‑year period. Despite these increases, student engagement remains very low relative to faculty usage, indicating that most students primarily use VoiceThread to watch faculty‑created presentations rather than to actively contribute content or interact with peers.
Current VoiceThread usage reflects a gradual shift in how the platform is being used across the institution. Data from the past three years show a consistent decline in faculty usage, particularly in total minutes, thread creation, and page creation. This decline appears to be driven in part by faculty transitioning away from using VoiceThread to host recorded lectures or narrated PowerPoint presentations, instead moving this content to platforms better suited for video distribution, such as Kaltura. The decrease in usage from 2024 to 2025 is also influenced by reduced adoption within the College of Health and Human Sciences, especially in the School of Nursing, which had previously been a major source of VoiceThread activity.
At the same time, student engagement metrics show modest increases in threads, pages, and comments over the same period, although overall levels remain very low. These patterns suggest that VoiceThread is still being used primarily as a content‑delivery tool, where students watch videos or narrated lectures, rather than as a platform for collaborative work, discussion, or sustained interaction with faculty and peers. Overall, the data indicate that while VoiceThread remains in use, its role has narrowed, with declining faculty‑driven content creation and limited evidence of widespread interactive or collaborative student use.
To gather faculty input for NIU’s online learning tool review process, a survey was distributed in fall 2025. Faculty who had installed any of the evaluated tools in at least one Blackboard course during the previous year were emailed a direct survey link, while additional access was provided through the CITL website. The survey was open from November 17 to December 3, 2025, and was sent to 400 faculty members who collectively represented users of Respondus (LockDown Browser and Respondus Monitor), VoiceThread, and Yellowdig. In total, 101 faculty completed the survey—97 via email invitation and 4 through the CITL website. Respondents completed only the tool sections relevant to their teaching, resulting in 52 VoiceThread responses, 33 Yellowdig responses, and 33 Respondus responses.
A total of 131 faculty members who used VoiceThread were surveyed, and 52 of them completed the survey, resulting in a participation rate of nearly 40%.
131
52
39.7%
The survey focused on five areas: usage patterns (how long and in how many courses each tool is used), reasons for use (such as academic integrity, engagement, or multimedia needs), perceived effectiveness (including ease of use, reliability, and instructional impact), challenges and potential alternative tools, and the overall importance of each tool, including whether NIU should renew its license.
Most faculty using VoiceThread have substantial experience with the tool, with the largest group reporting more than two years of use. Faculty incorporate it across multiple courses—especially those involving presentations or multimedia—and rely on it to deliver lectures, support student presentations, and enable richer audio–video communication than text‑based tools. Overall sentiment is positive, with many finding it valuable for improving communication and supporting online teaching, and some considering it essential. While a number of faculty note challenges with grading, the interface, or accessibility, most still view VoiceThread as an effective way to create more engaging, multimodal learning experiences.
For a detailed breakdown of the survey results see VoiceThread faculty survey results.
When asked about VoiceThread’s limitations, survey feedback indicates that the platform is constrained by usability, reliability, and instructional management challenges. Some faculty described VoiceThread as clunky and unintuitive, with a steep learning curve for both instructors and students. Commonly cited issues included inefficient grading workflows, weak Blackboard integration, limited support for group work and sustained interaction, and cumbersome or inflexible content editing. Respondents also reported technical instability, browser compatibility issues, and limited, unreliable accessibility and captioning tools.
“Can be difficult for students to navigate between tools-I feel I can use Kaltura for video. Students did say it took too long to ramp up confidence using Voice Thread.”
“The interface is complicated and clunky. Limited editing capabilities. Students sometimes get lost, unclear of where they are meant to interact.”
“I find Voice Thread clunky to use. It's not easy to grade student submissions.”
“Difficult/cumbersome to edit/update one slide from a presentation. ”
“It may not function properly with different web browsers. ”
“Very difficult with group work and making sure that group work is not published prematurely.”
“Within VT, after a few semesters of creating content, it gets very messy. Also, linking content to Blackboard is not always intuitive - I have at times struggled with that. ”
“VoiceThread has limited and tedious accessibility tools. Timestamps and word accuracy is well below industry standards, it lacks tools to fix such issues, and what tools exists are buggy with saves. ”
When asked about alternatives to VoiceThread, faculty identified several options, most frequently GoReact, which was cited as a strong replacement due to its robust interaction features, ease of use, split‑screen feedback, and support for frequent student engagement, though some noted concerns about added student cost. Others indicated that Blackboard discussion boards, Yellowdig, or stand‑alone PowerPoint voice‑over presentations could replicate key VoiceThread functions with less complexity and easier updating. Additional alternatives included using Kaltura or Camtasia for video creation. While a small number of faculty emphasized that VoiceThread remains best‑in‑class for their needs, many expressed openness to—or active use of—simpler, more flexible tools that integrate more smoothly into existing workflows and are easier for students to navigate.
“For my purposes, GoReact is perfect, however it costs the student and we want to keep costs down. It allows the instructor to make color coded feedback and give responses while viewing presentations.”
“I use Camtasia to make videos and upload into Kaltura.”
“GoReact. Currently, COMS 100 students have access to GoReact when they purchase access to McGraw-Hill Connect. I find GoReact much more robust and useful than Voice Thread. I'd like to see it made available to all students.”
“I preferred voice-over PowerPoint to help with easily updating certain parts of a lecture.”
“I think the important functionality in VT could probably be handled in Blackboard discussion or Yellowdig.”
“Not aware of any, but would welcome them. I will often have students produce their own stand-alone ppt shows for the same exercises as those with VoiceThread and while not all the functionality is there, the students had an easier time with it.”
NIU renews its VoiceThread contract annually, with billing based on the previous year’s usage. VoiceThread uses a tiered pricing model determined by the number of active users, and NIU consistently falls within the 3,000 active-users tier. An active user is defined as a person who meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) created at least 1 VoiceThread, (2) recorded at least 1 comment, or (3) watched at least 15 minutes of VoiceThread content.
| Fiscal Year 2024 | Fiscal Year 2025 | Fiscal Year 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| $24,480 | $25,704 | $24,608 |
Based on survey data and documented usage patterns over the past three years, it is recommended that VoiceThread be phased out and discontinued. The data show that the platform has increasingly been underutilized as an engagement tool and is most often used for basic content delivery—functionality that is already supported, and in many cases better replicated, by existing tools such as Kaltura, PowerPoint voice‑over, and Blackboard. Ongoing concerns related to usability, grading inefficiencies, limited support for group work, accessibility gaps, and technical instability have contributed to declining and inconsistent use and have prompted many faculty to adopt alternative solutions. While a small subset of users continue to rely on VoiceThread for its perceived ease of updating individual slides or audio segments, usage data indicate this benefit serves a narrowing audience and can be addressed through established workflows using supported tools. Discontinuing VoiceThread and reallocating resources toward widely adopted platforms and targeted faculty training would better align institutional investments with actual instructional practices and evolving faculty needs.
Phone: 815-753-0595
Email: citl@niu.edu
Facebook page Twitter page YouTube page Instagram page LinkedIn page