Casteleyn & Mottart Slidecast Yourself New Presentation Tool

7/31/2019 Casteleyn & Mottart Slidecast Yourself New Presentation Tool

1/9

Source: Casteleyn, J. & Mottart A. (2010). Slidecast yourself. Exploring the possibilities of a new online presentation tool,

International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings 2010, 255-261.

Slidecast Yourself Exploring the possibilities of a new presentation toolJordi Casteleyn & Andr Mottart

Many educational theorists stress the importance of social aspects for effective learning. In communities of

practice for instance, groups of practitioners might learn from each other and eventually constitute a shared

identity. Web 2.0 provides an ideal opportunity for this. An example of such a Web 2.0 information technologyis slidecasting, which can be described as podcasting by synchronizing PowerPoint and voice. Anyone can

upload their slidecasts to a website with an interface similar to YouTube, and anybody can watch these

products. However, there is limited research on this topic, its possible application in education and its

popularity in businesses. We therefore studied the educational implications of introducing slidecasting in the

classroom, sent a survey to our students to detect their attitude towards this new teaching tool, and organised

a focus group with communication professionals. We can conclude that slidecasting can be successful in

education, but that it will not immediately gain access to the corporate world due to problems concerning

confidentiality and the very nature of slidecasting.

Keywords: slidecasting, Web 2.0, education, presentations.

Source: Casteleyn, J. & Mottart A. (2010). Slidecast yourself. Exploring the possibilities of a new online

presentation tool, International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings 2010, 255-261.


2/9

2

1. Web 2.0 as a community of practice

A recurring challenge for technical communication educators is to produce real-life assignments, as the

situated learning theory stresses that the learning process will improve if the students are confronted with

authentic and/or realistic learning environments [1, p. 306]. Moreover, certain educational theorists, for

instance Tripp [2, p. 306], argue that this environment should also be interpreted as a social context. In these

communities of practice (a term coined by Lave and Wenger [3]) it should be possible for students tocollaborate with experts, support each other and eventually develop their personal and professional identity.

On his personal website, Etienne Wenger [4] describes these communities of practice as groups of people

who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact

regularly, and lists three crucial characteristics. First, these communities constitute an identity that is defined

by a shared domain of interest. This shared competence separates the members of a community from other

people. Second, the notion of community implies that people interact with each other, learn from each other

and eventually build relationships with each other. Finally, the second part of the term community of practice

is also essential. The members of such a community are practitioners and develop a common framework that

every member draws upon or refers to.

If we define Web 2.0 as the more open, personalized, participative and social version [5] of the former

Web, then it can be the virtual equivalent of these communities of practice. For instance, the business-

oriented website LinkedIn is aimed at building networks with contacts who have similar job positions, andencourages exchanging information among members of these professional groups, which can lead to a shared

knowledge of business practices. Of course, this view upon Web 2.0 as a community of practice could also be

fruitful for education and could increase the efficiency of existing learning practices. Some educators are

perhaps apprehensive of Web 2.0 because it is simply too provisional, unpredictable and uncontrollable to be

marshaled for traditional learning [5]. This paper will try to counter these assumptions by providing extra

information about the implementation of this social software.

2. Slidecasting as a Web 2.0 community of practice

A less-known example of such a Web 2.0 teaching tool is slidecasting, which could be described as

podcasting by synchronising PowerPoint and voice. Previously, this technology was mainly used by educators

in e-lectures, but since mid 2007 websites like SlideShare (www.slideshare.net) have made the production

process much more user-friendly, which has broadened its use to professionals and students. The software

needed to create such a slidecast can be found on the average computer, and almost every type of file used as

visual aids for a presentation is supported by the website. The slidecast itself can also be forwarded, paused

and stopped at any time.

Furthermore, these websites have become a real-life online community of practice. These virtual

presentations can be freely accessed, and the user interface enables showing appreciation for a slidecast,

commenting on it, befriending the producer of it, etc. By tagging your slidecast with several keywords and

choosing a category it belongs to, you deliberately place yourself in a community of practice where members

call on similar knowledge, but of course, the final success of such a community depends on the quantity and

quality of the contributions of its members.

3. Researching slidecasting

Although there is a treasury grove of information on presentations, the published research on slidecasting

focuses primarily on e-learning. Griffin, Mitchell & Thompson [6] give empirical evidence that synchronizedaudio and video are more effective than the provision of separate media items containing the same

information. However, they fail to mention more details about this new genre, nor do they refer to slidecasting

by students. Moreover, the identity issue is not extensively covered by academic literature, although recent

research (for example Casteleyn et al. [7]) has indicated that this aspect takes a central position in Web 2.0

products and their interpretation. The performance and construction of identity online are ultimately a social

phenomenon, which shows the relationship between Web 2.0 and communities of practice.

Furthermore, slidecasting might also provide pedagogical benefits. Research by Mottart and Casteleyn hints

at this [8], but there is little empirical evidence. Finally, perceptions of students about e-lectures are mostly


3/9

3

quite positive, and despite the mixed results from earlier research it could also be proven that it provides an

educational advantage [Cramer, Collins, Snider, and Fawcett in: 9]. On the other hand, although both

educators and students are willing to use the full potential of social software, internet for educational purposes

mostly still seems to be limited to searching information and communication. [10] In addition, research by

Burke and James [11] seems to suggest that a new teaching technology is positively regarded when students

perceive it as novel, but no data can be found about student attitudes towards producing slidecasts

themselves.

Based on this literature overview, this paper will concentrate on three topics:

The slidecast as a teaching tool: What are its possible pedagogical benefits? How could the onlinecommunity of practice affect the performance of the students?

Students attitude towards slidecasting: How do students perceive this? The slidecast as an emerging genre: Which distinctive features do professional communicators attribute

to it?

Within the framework of a communication course, we asked 89 undergraduate students of informatics

(Ghent University, Belgium) to produce a slidecast, which was the final assignment of their presentation skills

training. The participants had to post the internet link of their slidecast on a forum of the universitys online

learning environment, which made it available to all students and which should convey the idea of a community

of practice to the students.

4. The responses from the educators

The undisputable use of slidecasting for education is of course for the teaching of presentation skills. At

almost any stage in the process of the training of presentation skills this new teaching tool might prove its

success. By bringing the real world into the classroom it could be seen as the culmination of a communication

course, or it might be an appealing online environment in which students can give feedback to their peers,

before they have to perform in front of the total group. In addition to this, slidecasting answers a two-faced

phenomenon that is challenging todays education: personalisation and globalisation. Because you hear the

speakers voice, the slidecast is individualized in a way that many other teaching practices are not capable of.

Slidecasting is also happening in an authentic digital environment, which is open to the whole world. The

students products can be viewed by other students from different countries, business professionals, or just

random people who get intrigued by the content of the slidecast.At this moment it is important to introduce the theory of Kenneth Burke (1897-1993). Summarising the

theoretical framework he developed cannot be restricted to a single paragraph, but here we only want to focus

on the theme of identification he explored. According to Burke, identification plays a central role in rhetoric, and

consequently in life itself. Individuals form selves or identities through various properties or substances, which

include such things as physical objects, occupations, friends, activities, beliefs and values. As they ally

themselves with various properties or substances, they share substance with whatever or whomever they

associate and simultaneously separate themselves from others whom they choose not to identify. [12, p.69]

When Burke formulated this in 1950, some might have discarded his thinking, but Web 2.0 has proven the

vitality of this theory. The profiles on social network websites are carefully constructed tokens of identity: you

associate yourself with what you like and detach yourself from what you dislike. The users from these websites

are also well aware that the readers of their profile will interpret their actions accordingly. Performing an action

in Facebook could therefore be compared to acting on a stage. [7]

Slidecasting embodies all these features of identification. The website will automatically link the studentsslidecasts to other content-related siblings. The students can edit their profile to their preferences, and they

can show their appreciation for a certain slidecast by favouriting it. By doing so they deliberately remove

themselves from other (types of) slidecasts. As they fully realize that there is a (possibly unknown) audience

watching their product and their profile, this process of identification is strenghtened. As a result, a Web 2.0

environment, and slidecasting in particular, will intensify the commitment of the student to the course.

Friendlander and Macdougall already demonstrated that this student involvement is a key factor in student

success. [13] One of their proposed strategies for increasing student involvement in learning included

increasing student participation in out-of class learning activities by linking those activities to specific course


4/9

4

assignments. Slidecasting is an example of such an out-of-class learning activity, and the theory of Burke

gives a possible clarification of why this process is effective.

5. The responses from the students

5.1. Method

In order to answer the question how students perceived slidecasting, an online survey was created. Webased ourselves on the UTAUT model, that Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [14] created to understand the

individual acceptance of new information technologies within organisations. UTAUT stands for Unified Theory

of Acceptance and Use of Technology, which combines eight user acceptance models into one unified theory

and uses behavioural intention or behaviour itself as the most important dependent variable.

In the UTAUT model three constructs are seen as significant direct determinants of intention: performance

expectancy (the degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain

gains in job performance), effort expectancy (the degree of ease associated with the use of the system), and

social influence (the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she would use

the new system). In addition to this, two direct determinants of behaviour are described: behavioural intention

(which Venkatesh et al. do not explicitly define), and facilitating conditions (the degree to which an individual

believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system). Finally, three

other constructs are added to our survey, because they were significant predictors of intention and behaviour inother models: attitude toward behaviour (an individual overall affective reaction to using a system), self-

efficacy (a judgement of ones ability to use a technology to accomplish a particular job or task) and anxiety

(evoking anxious or emotional reactions when it comes to performing a behaviour).

In the UTAUT model, gender, age, experience and voluntariness of use are considered to have only a

moderating influence on the other constructs, which makes it even more interesting for us to integrate this

model into our research as our population is relatively homogeneous concerning these factors. Our group of

students consisted of 7 females and 82 males, and all from the same age group (18-20 years old).

Furthermore, as we conducted this survey at the end of the first term, they should all have the same level of IT

experience by then.

Although Venkatesh et al. focus on the acceptance and usage of information technologies in organisations,

the UTAUT model is able to account for 70 percent of the variance in usage intention, which ensures that this

model can also be applied to other situations. It is even not limited to IT applications, nor does it have to stay

within the boundaries of organisations. For instance, in 2009 Norsila binti Shamsuddin used the UTAUT modelto study how deep students involvement and acceptance towards the adoption of the technology used in

Computer Graphics and Image Processing subjects. [15] This is just one example of the possibility to integrate

this model into research of educational settings.

Unlike other studies, which also made use of the UTAUT model, we did not add any other determinants to

the list of factors. Of course, the original 30 statements were translated from English to Dutch (which is the

language used in the classroom), and they were modified to our specific case study. The scaling for all the

factors was based on five point Likert scaling: from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). In addition to this

quantitative survey, there was a qualitative part in which we asked our students to give three positive and three

negative aspects about slidecasting. After the deadline of the assignment of the slidecast, this online survey

was available on the digital learning environment, which the students could easily access and are already

familiar with. By the time we sent the questionnaire to our 89 students, already 16 people had stopped taking

the courses of informatics. 56 returned the survey, but 3 students had filled it incompletely and their data had to

be removed from the results. As only 4 females (n=53) took part in the survey, gender aspects will not bediscussed here.


5/9

5

Table 1. Key figures of the determinants

Determinant Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Mean Std. Error

Performance expectancy 1,00 4,50 2,7075 ,10791 ,78559

Effort expectancy 2,00 5,00 3,9575 ,07846 ,57122Attitude towards using technology 1,25 4,50 2,9387 ,10366 ,75464

Social influence 2,00 4,25 3,2689 ,07465 ,54342

Facilitating conditions 2,75 4,50 3,5094 ,05386 ,39212

Self-efficacy 1,80 4,00 2,7434 ,06970 ,50745

Anxiety 1,00 3,50 2,1557 ,08088 ,58881

5.2. Results

Due to the small sample size we will only focus on two types of analysis: a basic analysis and a correlation

analysis. In our situation, it is impossible to compare different test groups, software programs or different new

information technologies. In our opinion any other analysis would therefore convey us results which would be

difficult to validate for another population.

Table 1 gives an overview of the results of the seven determinants which are scored on a five point Likert

scale. It shows the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of the factors.

The two items which are the most striking are effort expectancy and facilitating conditions. Apparently the

students think that slidecasting is easy to learn and use, although nobody had ever produced a slidecast yet.

Moreover, they are convinced that they were capable of making a quality slidecast, and that all the necessary

resources for this were at their disposal, whereas the educators support was available but quite limited. The

low score of anxiety also indicates that slidecasting is nothing they are afraid of. One student commented on

this: I can imagine that not all students are familiar with this software, but on the other hand, this is the

department of informatics, so...

Table 2 gives an overview of the correlation between the seven determinants.There is a strong positive correlation between attitude towards using technology and performance

expectancy. Appreciating slidecasting entails expecting that slidecasting will prove to be useful in the future.

Furthermore, especially social influence proves to be a strong determinant. A positive between social influence

and performance expectancy, effort expectancy and attitude towards using technology can be discerned. The

social context of an educational setting (colleagues they have befriended, but also the educators) seems to

play important role in the success in the introduction of slidecasting into the course. Finally, there is a negative

correlation between anxiety and effort expectancy. It is quite logical that apprehension of slidecasting would

influence people in how they think how much time and effort they need to spend to be become competent at

slidecasting.


6/9

6

Table 2. Correlation analysis

In the qualitative part of the survey, students were asked to give three positive three negative features of the

practice of slidecasting. In addition to some prominent technical advantages of slidecasting (such as the ability

to share it with the whole world, and to play it again whenever you like it), they also mention that slidecasting

would make presenting easier for people who become nervous quickly. Apparently, the digital environment of

SlideShare is seen as a safe controllable place without an audience.

On the other hand most students acknowledge that slidecasting misses some key aspects of presenting: for

instance, it doesnt feel like a real presentation, it is difficult to be enthusiastic when presenting, and the

benefits of body language are lost. The aspect that is most referred to is (the lack of) interaction between

speaker and audience. Although most students are more than familiar with the social aspects of Web 2.0

technology, they feel that commenting on a slidecast or asking the producer a question via private messaging

is inferior to real-life interaction. It is interesting to see whether a focus group of professional communicators

would come to the same conclusions.

6. The responses from the professional communicators

6.1. Method

Three weeks after the last student had completed the survey, a focus group of professional communicators

was organized. In this type of research we aimed at finding patterns in the interview data that would

correspond with previous results. Furthermore, we wanted to discover the potential of slidecasting in the

corporate world. The seven participants were all male, 25-35 years old and held positions in companies that

compelled them to deal with communication on a day-to-day basis. Everybody was based in Belgium, except

for one who is in charge of a subsidiary of a Belgian company in the United Arab Emirates. Their functions

focus on marketing, human resources communication, business and technical writing, training, sales and

management. The organisations they are currently working for range from SMEs to multinational companies,

from advertising and communications groups to NATO.A systematic procedure was created to lead the focus group. First, they were asked about their current jobs,

their experience with Web 2.0 in the workfield, and what their definition of an online presentation was.

Secondly, a 10-minute slidecast of one of the students was watched. During this, they were asked to write

down their impressions and make a list of possible positive and negative aspects of slidecasting. The focus

group session was recorded and a transcript of it was completed afterwards. The notes of the participants were

collected too at the end of the session.

Determinant PE EE ATUT SI FC SE A

Performance expectancy (PE) 1,000

Effort expectancy (EE),242 1,000

Attitude towards using technology

(ATUT),764

**,340

*1,000

Social influence (SI) ,531**

,502**

,542**

1,000

Facilitating conditions (FC) -,045 ,200 ,014 ,326*

1,000

Self-efficacy (SE) ,136 ,084 ,174 ,234 ,172 1,000

Anxiety (A) -,323*

-,605**

-,427**

-,366**

-,033 -,269 1,000

** p < 0.01 level

* p < 0.05 level


7/9

7

Bearing the research question in mind, these transcripts were coded for relevant themes, and these codes

were given a temporary definition. While going through the transcripts these definitions were sometimes

challenged, and eventually larger categories were created in which all codes could be grouped.

6.2. Results

Web 2.0 seems to be a hot topic in their work field. Many managers are fascinated by it, but most

companies seem to hesitate to implement this into their internal and external communication due to a lack ofclear-cut strategies to rely on. If social media are used, it is only in a business-to-consumer context, and never

in a business-to-business situation, or as one of the participants summarized it eloquently: Not a lot of regular

people want to buy a nuclear plant, and I cannot imagine how Web 2.0 could be productive when trying to sell

something like this. Furthermore, confidentiality issues complicate the story. For instance, contrary to the

philosophy behind Web 2.0, the visibility and accessibility of the information are considered to be negative

aspects. Moreover, on a technical level, certain organisations do not even allow video streaming on their

network.

In addition to this, the focus group produced several different definitions of online presentations, but none of

them corresponded with slidecasting. Their top of mind description of online presentations entailed viewing the

speaker, being available to a larger audience than usual and being able to react instantly to what the speaker

is saying, but nobody spontaneously referred to the specific features of slidecasting.

After having watched an example of slidecasting, most participants of the focus group acknowledged thepossibilities of it. There is less chance of misinterpretation of the message because the tone of the voice of the

speaker gives enough clues on how to understand the information. It is also an attractive approach to archiving

your presentations online without first having to adopt any extra IT skills, but particularly, it could lower costs in

certain circumstances, because a presentation can be watched several times for the same cost. On the other

hand, they see a greater number of limitations to its use in the corporate world. Perhaps a corporate speaker,

for instance a CEO, could benefit from it, it might be convenient in a training setting, or perhaps it could be

practical in a multilingual context, but the lack of face-to-face contact is absolutely detrimental to, for instance,

the relation with the customer. Although they accept that visuals surpass text-only communication, they find

slidecasting relatively alienating, it is trying to sound natural in an unnatural situation. Webcasting such as

TED does could be a better option, but especially the absence of live interaction with the speaker annoys them.

Commenting on a slidecast is not a good alternative, because everybody can read these remarks, and this

might give rise to confidentiality conflicts. Moreover, the presentation itself appears to receive all the attention

instead of the speaker whom they regard as the most important factor in a presentation.Concluding, they see slidecasting as an example of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, not as a tool which has

merits on its own. Slidecasting might be integrated into their corporate communication, but only in a very

limited number of situations, and the quality of the slidecast (especially concerning visuals and animation)

should increase significantly. The distinctive features of Web 2.0 (such as sharing, reacting to information and

personalising the internet) are absent at the moment in the Belgian corporate world, and they claim that the

feasibility of introducing these features into their businesses is rather low.

7. Discussion and conclusions

Slidecasting appears to be an attractive new teaching tool, because it combines a Web 2.0 environment with

a product that the students can relate to personally. The concept of the community of practice can be

connected with the typical characteristics of Web 2.0, and the identification process that this brings with it

increases student involvement and therefore student success. Students also acknowledge that producing aslidecast is feasible and they have the necessary facilitating conditions to complete the assignment. It is

important to note that the emotional context plays an important role in the success of slidecasting by students.

There is a clear positive correlation between their attitude towards this new technology and their expectancy to

use slidecasting again in the future. Moreover, the social influence parallels with the students performance

expectancy, effort expectancy, and attitude towards slidecasting. Sufficient attention should thus be given to

the emotional aspects of slidecasting.

The contrast with the results from the focus group of professional communicators is quite revealing.

According to these professionals, slidecasting (and Web 2.0 in general) will reap no success in corporate life.


8/9

8

They emphasize the importance of the speaker for the presentation, which now tends to be overshadowed by

the content, the PowerPoint presentation and the interface of the website. External factors as confidentiality

and technical limitations also obstruct the current implementation of slidecasting into businesses. At the

moment, slidecasting therefore appears to be very intriguing for educators and forward-thinking

communicators, but not an everyday tool for businessmen.

However, there are certain limitations to this study. This research focuses on the possibilities of slidecasting

in Belgium. Although many of the recommendations and data from this paper could be valid in differentsituations, we can safely claim that there will be cross-cultural differences. For instance, one participant of the

focus group stated that there are major contrasts in the approach of communication between Anglo-Saxon and

Belgian companies, and the student group that took part in our research was almost exclusively male which

flattens out any potential gender differences. It might therefore be interesting to compare the results from this

paper with these from other educational and geographical settings.

8. References

[1] Snowman, J. and Biehler, R., Psychology applied to teaching, 10th ed. Boston/New York: Houghton MifflinCompany, 2003.

[2] Tripp, S. D., Theories, Traditions and Situated Learning, Educational technology, vol March, vol. 33, no. 3,

pp. 71-77, March 1993.

[3] Lave, J. and Wenger E., Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991.

[4] Wenger, E., Home page Etienne Wenger, June 2006. [Online]. Available: http://ewenger.com/theory/

[Accessed: February 1, 2010].

[5] Ravenscroft, A., Social Software, Web 2.0 and Learning: Status and Implications of an Evolving

Paradigm, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-5, 2009.

[6] Griffing, D., Mitchell, D. and Thompson, S, Podcasting by synchronizing PowerPoint and voice: What are

the pedagogical benefits, Computers and education, vol. 53, no. 2, 2009, pp. 532-539.

[7] Casteleyn, J., Mottart A., and Rutten, K., How to use Facebook in your market research, International

Journal of Market Research, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 439-447, 2009.

[8] Mottart, A. and Casteleyn, J., Visual Rhetoric Enhancing Students' Ability to Communicate Effectively,

International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1130-1139, December 2008.

[9] McKinney, D., Dyck, J. and Luber, E. , iTunes University and the classroom: Can podcasts replace

Professors?, Computers and Education, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 617-623, 2009.

[10] De Wever, B., Mechant, P., Veevaete, P., and Hauttekeete, L. (2007). E-Learning 2.0: Social Software forEducational Use. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia 2007 (ISM2007),

Taichung, Taiwan, 10-12, December 2007

[11] Burke, L. and James, K., PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: an emperical investigation of

student-perceived novelty and effectiveness, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 277-296, September 2008.

[12] Foss, S., Rhetorical criticism. Exploration & Practice. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2004.


9/9

9

[13] Friendlander, J., and Macdougall, P., Achieving Student Success Through Student Involvement,

Community College Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 20-28, 1992.

[14] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., and Davis, F., User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward

A Unified View, MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no.3, pp. 425-478, 2003.

[15] Shamsuddin, N., Students Perception towards the Implementation of Computer Graphics Technology inClass via Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of technology (UTAUT) Model, in Visual Informatics:

Bridging Research and Practice, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin, 2009, pp. 886-893.

Documents

Casteleyn & Mottart Slidecast Yourself New Presentation Tool