1 / 29

Negotiating Design in Video conferencing

Negotiating Design in Video conferencing. John Morgan, Alena Hradilov á , Libor Š t ě p á nek, Geoff Constable University of Wales Aberystwyth & Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Background. This project has emerged over a period of two years during which we have run

brendy
Download Presentation

Negotiating Design in Video conferencing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Negotiating Design in Video conferencing John Morgan, Alena Hradilová, Libor Štěpánek, Geoff Constable University of Wales Aberystwyth & Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

  2. Background This project has emerged over a period of two years during which we have run both domestic and international video conferences to facilitate the development of project work and discussion and presentation skills with English language students in universities in Wales and the Czech Republic.

  3. It started as an initiative to link Erasmus European exchange students visiting the University of Wales Aberystwyth for one semester or one year with English language students in the Faculties of Law and Social Studies at Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, some of whom were part of the Erasmus link in Aberystwyth.

  4. During this period further studies were carried out on a domestic basis with visiting international students in Aberystwyth and the theoretical foundations adapted from the findings of the study have further confirmed and informed our ongoing research and practice in video conferencing as an evolving literacy practice.

  5. These initial findings were presented at the Welsh Video Network Briefing Day in Aberystwyth in November, 2005. This presentation is effectively an extension of our findings through continuing practice. • http://www.wvn.ac.uk/bd20051117.htm

  6. Outline • Aspects of the theoretical foundations of our work. JM • Practical aspects of negotiating the design of communication in video conferences with students. AH • Discussion of new findings from more recent video conferences. LS • Audience participation to consider the extent to which you already negotiate design with your own students or feel that you could do this. • Plenary discussion. JM, AH, LS, GC

  7. Video conferencing & literacy practices • As little research exists in video conferencing as an evolving literacy practice, initial comparisons were drawn with ICTs in education to find similarities in needs and concerns when people are faced with new communications media.

  8. Subject village • As we are working internationally it is important that all our participating students have access to course information online. At UWA the VLE is Blackboard and for UWA students this would be fine. To include students in other countries however, they would need to be registered UWA students to gain access to the VLE.

  9. As a result of this we are working on the idea of “subject village” (cf. Glazier, 2002), in which a web-site, based on an editorial policy for inclusion, is set up with reciprocal links to student project sites. This gives access to ongoing project work that is presented and discussed via video conference.

  10. Our evolving subject village sites are accessible at: • http://users.aber.ac.uk/jpm/el21010/el2.html • http://lingua.muni.cz/videoconferencing/

  11. VC1  VC2: the need for design • Students’ feedback was drawn on the following question: Think about the last video conference and write any notes or comments that you think are relevant. It is important to identify areas where you think you could adapt or change things that you did, saw, or how the conference was arranged.

  12. Students’ feedback results - main categories (20 respondents) • Students’ body language and behaviour • Preparedness for the presentation • Problems arising from the context of the situation • Other comments

  13. Students’ body language and behaviour (20 respondents) • With so many students in the VC room, they couldn’t see who was speaking (9) • Making noise and “wild” body language (10 – 9 of them UWA – cultural?) • Speak up! (5) • Clothes (1)

  14. Preparedness for the presentation (23 respondents) • Improve structure of presentations to focus attention & avoid reading! (8) • Prepare questions for the audience in advance (8) • Prepare specific questions (2) • Simplify the language (2) • Make the topics more general (2) • Use VC1 to target the topic (1)

  15. Problems arising from context of the situation (17 respondents) • Personal: • Nervousness (4) • Foreign accents (2) • Different expectations Masaryk x UWA (2) • Importance of co-operation skills (1) • Technical: • Sound (4) • Microphone (2) • Operating the camera (2)

  16. Other comments (8 respondents) • Thanks • Well organized • Exciting

  17. Interpretation • Formality due to nervousness mentioned only 4 times • Others concentrating on more practical issues - moving from playfulness toward design through reflection on VC1

  18. Student reactions after VC2 • “Young people need to communicate and socialise” • Student issues between UWA and Masaryk perceived as being “the same” • Students can direct flow of communication according to contextual need via negotiation • “Dynamic plan attracts audience”

  19. Reactions (2) • Changing dynamic of presentation through negotiation built on observation of VC1  VC2 • Presentations should be shorter and questions should be incorporated into their body (long presentations are too formal) • More time should be given to discussion with specific questions to the audience

  20. Reactions (3) • Gained more from the course than expected: VC - cool idea • A very real-life activity • Cuts across • Universities • Disciplines • Topics • Nations • Cultures

  21. Reactions (4) • Obvious differences in objectives between Masaryk and UWA • UWA – final presentation is the objective (VCs are means to negotiate and adapt the topic and final design of the presentation) • Masaryk – active participation in VC2 is the objective (preparedness and self-management of the VC)

  22. Different approaches • UWA Well prepared mini-presentations of typical structure ending with questions • Masaryk Well prepared structured discussion

  23. Interpretation • Students actually tend to initially skip playfulnessin order to design a formal pattern ofinteraction as they perceive the task as a complex and demanding linguistic situation • Nevertheless, on watching VC recordings they realize that in practice beingplayful is more effective for language and skills development

  24. Do differences matter? • Changing the pace of the conference and the approach of the students perhaps makes it more colourful and less formal? • Both sides learn from each other which enhances the design of future VCs?

  25. Your own experience • If you use video conferencing, to what extent are students able to negotiate aspects of how VCs are designed? • What advantages or disadvantages have you seen in this? • To what extent do you think it would be possible to encourage greater flexibility in design? • Would this cause any particular difficulties in operation of your courses?

  26. References for slide 8 1Baron, N.S. (1998). “Letters by Phone or Speech by Other Means: The Linguistics of E-mail”. Language and Communication: 18, Pp.133-170. Constable, G. (date not provided). “Guidelines for Successful Video Conferencing” [online]. Available from: http://users.aber.ac.uk/ccc/vc-guidelines.pdf (Accessed 7th June, 2005). Video Technology Advisory Service (date not provided). “UKERNA Video Conferencing Meetings User Guide: A General Guide for Participants, Facilitators and Chairpersons” [online]. Available from http://www.video.ja.net/usrg/ (Accessed 7th June, 2005). 2Coles, M. & Hall, C. (2001). “Breaking the Line: New Literacies, Postmodernism and the Teaching of Printed Texts”. Reading: November, Pp.111-114. Oxford: Blackwell. 3Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold. 4 Lankshear, C. & Snyder, I. with Green, B. (2000). Teachers and Technoliteracy: Managing Literacy, Technology and Learning in Schools. St. Leonards, Sydney: Allen and Unwin. 5Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. 6Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.

  27. Other references and links • Glazier, L.P. (2002).Digital Poetics: The Making of E-poetries. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. • Morgan, J. (2005). "Video conferencing as an evolving literacy practice in higher education" [online] http://www.wvn.ac.uk/bd20051117.htm • MU subject village pages http://lingua.muni.cz/videoconferencing/ • UWA subject village pageshttp://users.aber.ac.uk/jpm/el21010/el2.html

  28. Contact details • John Morgan Language and Learning Centre, University of Wales Aberystwyth jpm@aber.ac.uk … http://users.aber.ac.uk/jpm • Alena Hradilová Faculty of Law, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic alena.hradilova@law.muni.cz • Libor Štěpánek Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic lstep@fss.muni.cz • Geoff Constable Welsh Video Network, University of Wales Aberystwyth ccc@aber.ac.uk … http://users.aber.ac.uk/ccc

More Related