Socialised Learning in Video ConferencingJohn MorganAberystwyth University

Invite Project partner presentation:

Inside the abstract

The current increase in video conferencing in higher education has significant implications for learning and teaching.

It re-addresses the nature of “appropriate” academic communication, especially where learning outcomes and discourse structures have been determined prior to the introduction of video conferencing in courses.

This study reflects on processes of socialised learning to suggest that socially appropriate communication roles cannot be taught explicitly; they are acquired by interaction and negotiation between participant groups.

By considering the nature of communication in video conferencing along with some of the facilitating conditions for framing of communication aims, I will argue that communication in higher education does not need to be explicitly “academic” and can be more “functionally oriented” to social and professional interests.

Communities of practice• Shared history

• Collective identity

• Reciprocal obligations

• Discourse

new video conference participants may not have a distinct sense of shared history

some elements of e.g. being students can give a sense of collective identity, but specific aspects may be very different

at this level of mutual awareness new communities can bond more easily

the patterns of interaction that emerge may vary significantly from group to group

Based on Mercer (2000)

SOCIAL TECHNOLOGICALFACTORS DIMENSIONS 4

Social factors and technological dimensions are interrelated characteristics that vary from group to group

Formality 1 Operational 4

Playfulness 2 Cultural 4

Design 3 Critical 4

Considerations of appropriacy (sociocultural factors, negotiation, discussion of style and content)

Participation 5

Considerations of appropriacy

(sociocultural factors, negotiation, discussion of style and content)

Reappraisal of considerations of appropriacy

Community of practice 6

© John Morgan, 2005, jpm@aber.ac.uk, http://users.aber.ac.uk/jpm

Socialised learning

The concept of “socialised learning” suggests that participants may learn effectively (but not always best) through interaction that is structured andfacilitated within social or learning groups.

This means that the classroom and learning methodologies can be centred around a socially oriented framework of decision making—within class and within formal syllabus specifications—as a parallel activity to formal learning outcomes.

Within this framework it is possible to engage in video conferencing activities with a partner institution (Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic), across parallel academic programmes with different learning outcomes. At the same time social outcomes interweave with all levels of communities development.

Despite the fact that student teams are graded for formal presentations in the learning outcomes (differently in each institution), we have deliberately kept the video conference room as a “social space” within our programmes.

Researching socialised learning

Donald MacKenzie (1993: 7) argues that “[T]hose of us who research socialprocesses are seldom able to set up our own experiments. We have to wait for the world to do it for us. The passage of time, and changes it brings in thefactors and phenomena that interest us, are our single best resource” (in Whitley, 1997).

We can conduct educational research into the phenomena that are measurableby learning outcomes, but to define processes that measure learning in the “social space” of a course leaves us subject to our participants and their interpretation of the world. Too much guidance or control interferes with the verynature of social interaction.

Despite this though, it is very difficult to take a back seat to all the planning andorganising; the design of video conference discussions and presentations. The importance of socially negotiated design formed the basis of my last two Diverse presentations in Glasgow and Lillehammer.

Design though is very much centred around strategic interaction and exchange.

“What’s in it for me?”

Three particular questions are explored by McCarthy and Hatcher (2002: 14-15)around the issue of learning to answer questions strategically.

“What’s in it for me?” Listeners need a reason before committing themselves towhat can be a demanding mental process.

“What do I want to say?” We have aims according to our own reasons forspeaking and we make demands of our listeners.

“What is the most effective way of constructing and presenting the particularthings I want to say to achieve my purpose?” Will my listeners make adequateconcessions to my demands on their time?

Without guidance video conference participants set out to design discussions orpresentations according to their own aims, but in so doing—and especially where there is no clear sense of shared history or collective identity around what hasbeen learned in class or is common knowledge in a given culture—it is easy totune out an audience.

It’s easy to assume…

It’s easy to assume that others will be interested in our own presentations, or will be able to discuss it from perspectives that match our own.

These students had little collective identity or shared history and not knowing audience characteristics at this level can easily result in the reaction we see here.

From Kosovo to ancient Egypt & Greece

More recent video conferences were centred around team projects in:

Aberystwyth U. Death ceremonies in ancient Egypt

Aristotle and his influence on science

Problems in language learning

Masaryk U. Animal testing

Forgery in fine arts

Brno: culture, history, sports

And the design of video presentations/discussions for all these topics had the potential for inducing the “Kosovo effect” seen in the last video sample.

Design ParticipationTo counter this possibility at the same time as enhancing participation we set up a “mute mic” activity around each of the topics. After each topic was introducedby a loose interpretation of a spoken abstract (background, focus, methods ofinvestigation, discussion or analysis, overall relevance/value), we went back to our remote groups to answer three simple questions for our remote partners:

“What do you want to know?”

“What do you want to see?”

“What do you want to be able to discuss?”

Answers to these questions immediately placed emphasis on audience in a waythat goes beyond the immediate call to “learn their demographics” (McCarthy and Hatcher, 2002: 15). It focuses critical aspects of the design from an audienceor user perspective. Where interaction is designed by individuals or teams without this intermediary stage, it runs the risk of being too specific as we saw earlier. By including this stage we bring in a much more social aspect of participation.

Designed for participationWhile some presentations lend themselves to the use of DVD or video recordings (e.g. interviews, pre-filmed content) and some work well by Powerpoint, others can be equally well received via less advanced media, such as document cameras, or even hand written posters displayed in frontof the camera.

The last course we worked with was held just before a complete upgrade to the video conference suite at Aberystwyth and we ran into all kinds of technicalproblems. Despite this we found that because students were focused very muchon what the audience wanted to know, see and discuss, they appeared to bemore confident in the face of operational difficulties. The goal of the design hadbecome information and dialogue rather than expertise of presentation.

In prior conferences—at earlier stages of the research—I advised students to focus more on the design. On reflection this created greater anxiety in theirexpectations for expert delivery and reception of the presentation.

This more socialised process focuses more on the participation and how design is used to facilitate that participation.

It’s not about the technology

This level of socialised participation emphasises that effective communicationis not necessarily about the effective use of the most advanced technology.

This would be a bonus, but we face numerous operational problems:

from limitations of how much users know about how the technologyworks;

from limitations in the equipment available, how old it is and what it will work with.

What matters more at this stage in building communities through effectiveparticipation is the use of the most effective technology to facilitate a clearpresentation and dynamic discussion.

The research continues, but here is a collection of still images from streamedrecordings of our video conferences.

Plan A: Animal testing—mixed media

Plan A: Art forgery—Powerpoint

Plan A: Aristotle—Document camera

Plan B: Egypt—Powerpoint + camera 2

Aberystwyth question: “Is it OK for you to read over there?”

Masaryk reply: “Yes, it’s quite alright.”

Plan B: Language—Word + camera 2

Camera 2max. zoom

Turn it around and see what happens

What they see now

Camera 1 beginning to zoom

Back to plan A for the big finale

And they were even offering prizes!

Working papers and conference links

• Welsh Video Network Conference, Aberystwyth, 2005

• Diverse Conference, Glasgow, 2006

• Invite subject village web-site

• Live Sociology photographic essay

• Video Funet Conference, Tampere, Finland

• Diverse Conference, Lillehammer, Norway, 27th-29th June, 2007

• Diverse Conference, Haarlem, Netherlands, July 1st – 3rd, 2008

• Diverse Conference, Aberystwyth, June 24th – 26th, 2009

AcknowledgementsThe work presented here could not be done without the help of:

Video conference participants:

EL27720 students, Aberystwyth UniversityEnglish language students, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic

Invite Project partners in the Czech Republic, Spain & UK:

Hana Katrnakova, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech RepublicAlena Hradilová, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech RepublicLibor Štěpánek, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech RepublicBarbora Budiková, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech RepublicSantiago Posteguillo, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, SpainJanice de Haaff, Aberystwyth UniversityMartin Ashe-Jones, Aberystwyth University

Technical support team in Aberystwyth:

Tom Fernandez, Information Services, Aberystwyth UniversityNigel Thomas, Information Services, Aberystwyth UniversityMartin Pugh, Information Services, Aberystwyth UniversityGeoff Constable, Welsh Video Network & Information Services, Aberystwyth University

References

(1) Baron, N.S. (1998). “Letters by phone or speech by other means: the linguistics of e-mail”. Language and Communication: 18, Pp.133-170.

(2) Coles, M. & Hall, C. (2001). “Breaking the line: new literacies, postmodernism and the teaching of printed texts”. Reading: November, Pp.111-114. Oxford: Blackwell.

(1) 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).

(5) Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

McCarthy, P. & Hatcher, C. (2002). Presentation Skills: The Essential Guide for Students. London: Sage Publications.

(3) Kress, 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.

(6) Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.

(1) 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).

Whitley, E.A. (1997). “In cyberspace all they see is your words: a review of the relationship between body, behaviour and identitydrawn from the sociology of knowledge.” Information Technology and People: 10/2, Pp. 147-163.

What are you doing in June 2009?

Wednesday 24th – Friday 26th June, 2009

http://www.aber.ac.uk/diverse

diverse-conference2009@aber.ac.uk