Developing a training programme for video conferencing: Project InviteJohn MorganUniversity of Wales Aberystwyth

Hana Katrňáková, Alena Hradilová, Libor Štepánek, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic

With Barbora Budíková (MU), Janice de Haaff & Martin Ashe-Jones (UWA)

http://users.aber.ac.uk/jpm jpm@aber.ac.ukhttp://conference.hil.no/content/download/348/3091/file/John%20Morgan.pdf

Scope of the presentation• Introduce Invite Project and identify our theoretical

foundation of a communities of practice perspective of video conferencing

• Identify the needs of SME project partners and the academic practices that inform ongoing development

• Identify a link between communities and “social telepresence”

• Indicate user responses to early VCs as barriers to telepresence and discuss how an evolving sense of community can provide a sense of social telepresence, despite limitations in technology

Invite: an innovative learning infrastructure• 2 year EU funded project (Leonardo da Vinci)

• Seven project partners in Czech Republic,UK, Spain, Italy & Slovakia: 3 universities, 4 SMEs

• Aim: to provide a training programme,materials and learning infrastructure for SMEpartners in effective practices in video conferencing and to disseminate research and development findings

Framework for project development

• The project is based on video conference initiatives between Masaryk University in Brno and University of Wales Aberystwyth

• Students design team-based projects andhold discussions and presentations viavideo conference

• Ongoing development of VC methodologiesis derived from user responses in relation toworking theory of literacies development invideo conferencing (Morgan, 2005)

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

Project needs analysis (SME 1)

ILLE, Lozorno, Slovakia (education and training)

• Educational visits by US business students

• Presentations in companies

• Preparation for meeting companies

• Intercultural communication

• Need guidelines for initial use and effective practices, along with equipment and layout of video conferencing “spaces”

Project needs analysis (SME 2)

Tart Ltd., Brno, Czech Republic (packaging and packaging machines)

• Multinational company rapidly expanding into international markets

• Effective communication with internationalpartners

• Reducing costs and delays of travel

• Communication with subsidiaries, company management, sales representatives: mostly meetings

Project needs analysis (SME 3)

Seven Partners, Udine, Italy (European project organisation and management)

• Internal needs: employees and partners deal with weekly agendas and solve problems

• Employees need to chair/facilitate video meetings,with effective uses of turn-taking and othercommunication skills

• External needs: communicating with other clients to create working groups to solve problems andset project agendas. Keen to develop “mentalitytraining” (a culture of engaging with new media)

Project needs analysis (SME 4)

Českomoravský Cement, Brno, Czech Republic

• Leading manufacturer of cement

• Significant experience with video conferencingwith good levels of equipment and technical support

• Meetings and negotiations for import and export ofmaterials and finished products

• To develop further training opportunities and communication skills for employees

Elective transferability

Return to the classroom

• To gain experience of the development of videoliteracies we have set up an action researchframework for analysis of communication and“elective transferability” of communication practices

• Elective transferability refers to user responsesto watching recordings of their own conferenceswith a view to developing a team-based andindividual critical design for subsequent video conferences without significant facilitatorintervention

Obstacles and responses• Elective transferability can be used as an important

methodological orientation of the of training materials

• We are not able to engage partners in many development activities and they expect delivery of materials at the end of the two year project

• This means that we have to identify transferablemethodology and activities from our own classroomand academic practices

• User responses and sample VC scenarios that arebeginning to motivate partners indicate that this is notas problematic as originally expected

The possibility of telepresence

• Current video conferencing research and developmentfocuses very much on the concept of telepresence

• It is commonly seen as a set of technologies that enables users to feel that there are no barriers between remote user groups

• Hi definition technologies are clearly increasing the potential for powerful simulation and/or telepresence

• Here it is argued though that telepresence can beachieved quite easily with very limited technologies

Cyberculture• Studies in cyberculture have long identified concepts

such as mental and emotional telepresence Trudy Barber (2004), “Travelling on-line: encounters with cyberculture”. Online Education and Training. Institute of Education, University of London

• Physical telepresence is achieved throughsensation and imagery

• Emotional telepresence is achieved bysuspension of disbelief

• Mental telepresence is achieved throughintellectual engagement

• Social telepresence is achieved through a sense of belonging to a community

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

From communities of practice…• Shared history

• Collective identity

• Reciprocal obligations

• Discourse

new VC 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)

…to socially telepresent communities… Shared history Collective identity Reciprocal obligations Discourse …

• It would be easy to assume that this is a linear process, but even in physically present communities we can enter the cycle at any stage

• It could be argued that new VC participants enter the emerging community at the awkward stage of

reciprocal obligations and that a sense of belonging through the emergence of identity and/or history breaks down virtual barriers towards a feeling of social telepresence

Photographing social telepresence: 1

Photographing social telepresence: 2

Photographing social telepresence: 3

From academic to professional

• Elective transferability strategies bridge the gap between academic and professional life

• Acquisition allows participants to individualise communication for specific audiences and partners towards the enabling of social telepresence

“You can really involve the people on the other side of the discussion”

“I think it is the same as speaking in front of a real audience”

“The most important thing I learned is not to panic”

Continuing research

• The next stage of theoretical work in the Invite Project is to analyse and code numerous hours of video recordings

• The samples will initially be analysed from

• language & negotiation perspectives• social & cultural factors• operational & technical dimensions

• The results will inform ongoing development of project and will also be used to refine the theoretical framework presented here

Working papers and conference links• Welsh Video Network Conference, Aberystwyth, 2005:

• Diverse Conference, Glasgow, 2006:

• Invite Project web site:

• Live Sociology photographic essay:

• Video Funet Conference, Tampere, 10th-11th May, 2007:

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

• Diverse Conference, Haarlem, 2008

• As the local organiser of the Diverse Conference, June 2009, I would like to “invite” everybody to Abersytwyth in 2009:

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

Video conference participantsEL27720 & Foundation students, University of Wales AberystwythEnglish language students, Masaryk University, BrnoInvite Project partners in the Czech Republic, Spain & UKHana Katrnakova, Masaryk University, BrnoAlena Hradilová, Masaryk University, BrnoLibor Štěpánek, Masaryk University, BrnoBarbora Budiková, Masaryk University, BrnoSantiago Posteguillo, Universitat Jaume I, CastellónJanice de Haaff, UWAMartin Ashe-Jones, UWATechnical support team in Aberystwyth:Tom Fernandez, Information Services, UWANigel Thomas, Information Services, UWAMartin Pugh, Information Services, UWAGeoff Constable, Welsh Video Network & Information Services, UWA

References1 Baron, 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).

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.

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.

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

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