Have you read Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody? Or at least watched his 20-min presentations on TED Talks? here and here.
He suggests that a strong network is a network of dense clusters. This is more efficient than a hierarchy, where everyone is critical to the organization. It’s also more efficient than everyone being connected to everyone, which soon becomes unmanageable.
Those of you participating (or hoping to) in the Jazz workshop, does this graphic ring a bell? Lead facilitators and “Jazz veterans” are the connectors between the groups. Newbies start just connected to their small group.
I think that’s why Jazz seems to be successfully growing without driving any of us crazy (yet). What do you think?
Are you in any other groups that have this type of network of dense clusters? Who is in YOUR cluster? Are you in more than one cluster? Are you passing information between them?
This post is part of a series examining articles on the communication aspects of videoconferencing.
Wegge, J. (2006). Communication via videoconference: Emotional and cognitive consequences of affective personality dispositions, seeing one’s own picture, and disturbing events. Human-Computer Interaction, 21(3), 273 – 318. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci2103_1
Comment: This study title made me laugh. How often have you seen “disturbing” events in a videoconference? I remember one of my coordinators telling the story of young students connecting to a zoo or museum – and the picture distorted due to packet loss. “She’s turning into a monster!,” one student said.
This study included two experiments: one simulated an oral university examination via videoconference, and the second a consultation between a landlord and expert for real estate law. The author considered the oral exam to be an emotional experience, and the consultation would be more emotion neutral.
The study found that students who had high scores for test anxiety experienced more tension, less calmness and performed lower on the test. Wegge also found that the test anxiety is amplified when the participants saw a large picture of themselves. If they saw their picture in a small picture-in-picture, there was no performance differences between high- and low-anxious students.
The consultation experiment compared individuals with high negative affectivity and high positive affectivity and their experiences in a videoconference. Wegge found that individuals with high negative affectivity experienced negative emotions more intensely, and individuals with high positive affectivity experienced positive emotions more intensely. Is this because seeing yourself increases self-awareness and provides a special feedback loop? Interesting to consider. Wegge also found that when the participant saw their own picture, the emotions of dislike, anger, and shame were increased compared to when they didn’t see their own picture. These negative feelings were increased when there were technical or organizational problems in the videoconference. In the final analysis, Wegge found that when there were problems with the videoconference, the participants had more negative affective reactions, lower ratings on the quality of the counseling, and impaired memory for what they learned from the expert.
Application: PIP
So, what does this mean for us in K12 curriculum videoconferencing? One thing to consider is the placement of the picture-in-picture (PIP). My schools really like our VC carts; and the teacher can put down the remote so that the picture in picture goes away (via the “feet” on the Viewstation or VSX remote). Think of the carts with two huge monitors. While the vendors show them with the remote content on the second monitor (see pic); more often in K12 videoconferencing that second monitor has your picture in picture. Ever noticed kids misbehaving because they can see themselves? As I think about this more, I realize that unless you’re teaching full courses via VC, you really don’t need that large second monitor! Do you agree?
Application: Negative Affectivity
When I train my VC coordinators, I have them consider which teachers to start with first. Who is willing to try something new? Who is flexible and can handle some glitches?
I also have them think about who is more likely to be able to handle the VC on their own eventually; and which teachers need extra hand-holding to make sure it goes well. I realize again how important it is to make sure that teachers have a good first experience with VC. This is why I bend over backwards to make sure our VCs don’t get canceled or rescheduled. I keep several different ways to connect a videoconference, so if one way doesn’t work, I can try another. My three main ways are: connect directly if it doesn’t work on the bridge, connect on the bridge if it doesn’t work directly, connect through my Polycom VSX 7000 multipoint if it doesn’t work any other way.
Your Turn
What do you think of this study?
How do you use the picture-in-picture? Do you like having a second monitor or not?
How do you help your teachers have a good experience with VC?
This post is part of a series examining articles on the communication aspects of videoconferencing.
Article Reference Bekkering, T. J. E. (2004). Visual angle in videoconferencing: The issue of trust. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3120803)
Summary
The visual angle in this research is the distance between the camera and the monitor – which can make it look like the person you are talking with isn’t actually looking at you. Bekkering wanted to see if this angle is related to the trust between individuals to possibly explain why videoconferencing has not been adopted as widely as phone and email. The study was done with undergraduate students as the subjects.
The study found that:
Eye contact is only perceived when the conversation partner looks straight into the camera.
Horizontal loss of eye contact decreases perceived trustworthiness.
Vertical loss of eye contact decreases perceived trustworthiness.
Perceived trustworthiness in video conditions is higher than in text-only conditions. (p. 89)
Conclusions included:
Videoconferencing adds to the ability to trust by the “ability to clarify communication with gestures and visual information” (p. 91).
Manufacturers should try to reduce the distance between the lens of the camera and the screen of the unit, particularly for desktop videoconferencing.
If users are aware of this, they can either compensate by learning to ignore the fact that someone might not be looking directly at you. Or they can try to adjust the camera & screen to place them as close together as possible.
Application to Curriculum VC
So what should we do? I think that content providers in particular need to be aware of this and plan for it. I think of Kasey at Mote Marine Sea Trek who does an amazing job at looking directly at the camera! (and being high energy too!)
In classroom-to-classroom collaborations, do your best to try to have students look at the camera. My favorite tip is from a participant in my Planning Interactive Curriculum Connections online class who suggested putting a beanie baby on top of the camera. Tell the students: “Talk to the pig” (or whatever it is)!!
Your Turn
What do you think? What are your tips for making sure that you and your students look at the camera in a videoconference?
This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.
Another major part of my study was to create a model to predict the use of curriculum videoconferencing in schools. I selected a combination of variables that were significant in the correlation analyses or the multiple regression analyses which gave a more complete picture of the implementation of videoconferencing.
This graph shows the multiple regression B weights for each variable. Think of it as how much that variable contributed to the school’s use of videoconferencing while all the other variables are held constant. You can click the graph to see it larger.
Here are the B weights and their significance for each of these variables.
School Characteristics
Significantly Positive: Elementary School (b=15.269, p=.000)
Significantly Positive: Ethnicity Other (remember this was mostly First Nations/Native American) (b=26.249, p=.000)
Coordinator Characteristics
Female (b=6.422, p=.146)
Significantly Positive: Level of education: 2 years of college (b=20.544, p=.002)
This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.
Owston (2007) created a model that suggests components necessary for the sustainability of a technology innovation in schools. I used this model as the theoretical framework for my study. I included all of his essential and contributing conditions except for the student support. You can see how the two connect with this graphic. Click the graphic to see it larger.
What do you think?
Does your current implementation of technology (any technology) include these components? Do you agree that they are critical to sustaining the innovation?
Now that you’ve seen this, how might you improve your current technology implementation?
Please comment!
Reference: Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: an international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 61-77. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-9006-6
This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.
Remember as you review the results of my study that every variable was examined to see its relationship with how often the school was using curriculum videoconferencing and whether that variable could be used to predict the use of videoconferencing.
A major part of my study was the development of a scale for coordinators with questions related to their skill in coordinating VC and the staff attitudes about videoconferencing. For those interested in the details, the K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale has good reliability and validity estimates. Cronbach’s alpha was .815, which means the scale can be used to predict a school’s use of videoconferencing based on an individual coordinator’s score. For full details, see p.55-59.
The K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale has six subscales:
The quality of the videoconference (audio and video)
The coordinator’s ability to support videoconferencing
The coordinator’s ability to integrate VC in the curriculum
The coordinator’s ability to work with teachers
The coordinator’s perception of the teachers’ attitudes towards videoconferencing
The coordinator’s perception of the principal’s support of videoconferencing
In this post, we’ll look at the relationship between subscales and the school’s use of curriculum videoconferencing.
Quality of the Videoconference
The quality of the videoconference was not significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC. However, when it was included in multiple regression analysis with all the subscales (which hold all the other variables constant), the quality of the videoconference contributed negatively (b=-12.34, p=.002) to the prediction of the use of VC.
Coordinator’s Ability to Support VC
The coordinator’s ability to support VC was not significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC.
However, it was significantly correlated to the coordinator’s ability to work with teachers (r=.471), the teachers’ attitudes (r=.238), and the principal’s support of VC (r=.177). And these in turn were correlated with the school’s use of VC.
Coordinator’s Ability to Integrate VC in the Curriculum
The coordinator’s ability to integrate VC in the curriculum was not significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC.
However, it was significantly correlated to the coordinator’s ability to work with teachers (r=.688), the teachers’ attitudes (r=.296), and the principal’s support of VC (r=.176).
Coordinator’s Ability to Work with Teachers
The coordinator’s ability to work with the teachers was positively correlated with the school’s use of videoconferencing (r=.139, p=.021).
Coordinator’s Perception of Teacher Attitudes
The coordinator’s perception of the teachers’ attitudes towards videoconferencing was positively correlated with the school’s use of videoconferencing (r=.405, p=.000).
Coordinator’s Perception of Principal Support
The coordinator’s perception of the principal’s support of videoconferencing was positively correlated with the school’s use of videoconferencing (r=.320, p=.000).
Recommendations/Discussion
Why do you think some schools with better quality of videoconferencing are using it less than some schools that have more pixelation and breakup in their videoconference? This was one of the surprising findings of my study. Have you noticed that? I have some schools that have awful quality and yet their need is so great (very rural; not very many opportunities) and they love VC!
Isn’t it interesting that the coordinator’s ability alone isn’t enough to get the school to use VC often? The teachers make a big difference! But… good VC coordinators find ways to encourage teachers to use VC. What are your most effective strategies to improve teachers’ view of using VC in the curriculum?
Seeing that the principal support is so important to the successful implementation of VC, how do you gain that principal support? What strategies do you recommend?
This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.
Remember as you review the results of my study that every variable was examined to see its relationship with how often the school was using curriculum videoconferencing and whether that variable could be used to predict the use of videoconferencing.
In this post, we’ll look at the relationship between the school’s use of curriculum videoconferencing and some more support variables.
Who Supports You?
The choices were: a technical support person in my school, at my district, at my ESA or the vendor.
Each of these answers was not significantly correlated to the schools’ use of videoconferencing. However, when using all the administrative reports in a multiple regression analysis to determine which variables predict use of videoconferencing, tech support from my ESA contributed positively to the regression model (b=67.06, p=.011).
Speed of Support
The speed of support that the coordinator received was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Location of Equipment
Only two of the equipment locations were significantly correlated to the school’s use of videoconferencing.
Schools with a mobile cart are using videoconferencing significantly more than the average of all the others (r=.156, p=.009).
Where the coordinators support multiple systems in multiple locations, their schools are using videoconferencing significantly less than the average of all the others (r=-.159, p=.008).
The schools that have mobile equipment are the only ones that are significantly satisfied with the location of the equipment (r=-.151, p=.012).
Reasons for the Location of Equipment
None of the reasons for the location of the equipment were significantly correlated to the school’s use of videoconferencing.
However, two of the reasons were significantly correlated to the coordinator’s satisfaction with the location of the equipment.
Schools who placed the equipment based on ease of use for teachers were more satisfied with the location of the equipment (r=.278, p=.000).
Schools who placed the equipment based on the only available room were less satisfied with the location of the equipment (r=-192, p=.001).
Recommendations / Discussion
Do you receive tech support from your ESA? It seems like this is an important piece, and could be because it is hard for overworked district tech coordinators (at least in smaller distrcits) to have the detailed knowledge necessary to make IP videoconferencing work on school networks. What do you think?
Do you think there is an ideal location of equipment in a school using VC for curriculum enrichment?
Are you satisfied with the current location of your equipment? Do you wish it was somewhere else?
Do you agree with these results in your situation? why or why not?
This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.
Remember as you review the results of my study that every variable was examined to see its relationship with how often the school was using curriculum videoconferencing and whether that variable could be used to predict the use of videoconferencing.
In this post, we’ll look at the relationship between the school’s use of curriculum videoconferencing and some administrative support variables.
Hours Spent Supporting VC at Work
The hours the coordinator spent supporting VC at work was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing. However, when using all the administrative reports in a multiple regression analysis to determine which variables predict use of videoconferencing, this variable contributed negatively to the regression model (b=-3.400, p=.050). This could be because full time VC coordinators are spread too thin supporting multiple units.
Hours Spent Supporting VC at Home
The hours the coordinator spent supporting VC at home was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Amount School Spent on Programming
The amount of funds that the school spent on programming was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Grant Funds for Programming (yes/no)
Whether or not the school had grant funds for programming was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Grant Amount Spent on Programming
The amount of grant funds that the school spent on programming was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Recommendations / Discussion
Aren’t these results interesting? I think they are one of the more interesting results of my study. Why is the amount spent on videoconferencing not significant? Is it because some schools receive so much free programming (either from their ESA or from collaborative projects or both)? What does this say about the future and sustainability of content providers? What do you think?!
As much as videoconference coordinators want more time to support videoconferencing, this isn’t significantly correlated to the school’s use of VC. Why do you think that is? What else do you think is more important in predicting the use of VC in schools?
This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.
Remember as you review the results of my study that every variable was examined to see its relationship with how often the school was using curriculum videoconferencing and whether that variable could be used to predict the use of videoconferencing.
In this post, we’ll look at the relationship between the school’s use of curriculum videoconferencing and support from an educational service agency.
Support from an ESA
Whether the school has ESA support or not was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
ESA Creates and Facilitates VCs for the School
Where the ESA creates and facilitates VCs for the school, the school was using videoconferencing significantly more often (r=.120, p=.046).
ESA Subsidizes Programming from Content Providers
Whether the ESA subsidizes programming or not was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
Percentage of VCs Provided or Facilitated by ESA
The percent of VCs provided or facilitated by the ESA was not significantly related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing.
ESAs that Facilitate/Create are also Subsidizing VCs
Interestingly, these variables were interrelated. There was a strong positive correlation between ESA’s that create and facilitate VCs for their schools and if they subsidize programming for their schools (r=.591, p=.000).
In addition, there was a strong positive correlation between ESA’s that create and facilitate VCs for their schools and the percentage of VCs provided or facilitated by the ESA (r=.506, p=.000).
Recommendations & Discussion
What recommendations would you draw from these results?
Schools: If you receive support from an educational service agency (or in a big district, your district VC office), what services do you see as essential?
Schools: What types of programs do you receive from your ESA?
ESAs: What services do you think are essential to provide to your school districts?
What types of programs should ESAs facilitate and provide?
This post is part of a series inviting discussion, comments and reflection on the results of my dissertation.
Remember as you review the results of my study that every variable was examined to see its relationship with how often the school was using curriculum videoconferencing and whether that variable could be used to predict the use of videoconferencing.
In this post, we’ll look at the relationship between the school’s use of curriculum videoconferencing and some more coordinator demographic variables.
Years Coordinator Worked in Education
The number of years the coordinator has worked in education was negatively related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing. (r=-.130, p=.032). This variable dropped out of significance in the final prediction model.
Years Coordinator Has Experience with VC
The number of years the coordinator has worked with videoconferencing was negatively related to the schools’ use of videoconferencing. (r=-.154, p=.010). This variable dropped out of significance in the final prediction model.
Hours of Training
The total hours of training the coordinator received was not significantly related to videoconferencing.
Type of Training
Schools where the coordinator received mostly technical training were using videoconferencing significantly less than those who received some or mostly curriculum training (r=-.121, p=.044).
Time to Support Videoconferencing
This question had four choices: full time VC coordinator; part-time VC coordinator; coordinator on top of regular job; other.
Schools where the coordinator chose “Other” were using videoconferencing significantly less than the average of the other choices (r=-.132, p=.028).
Recommendations & Discussion
What recommendations would you draw from these results?
Why do you think some coordinators chose “other” out of those four choices? Do you think they promoted VC in their schools? I think they didn’t see themselves as “coordinators”; only that they’d help the teachers if the teachers wanted to use it. Do you agree with me?
Do you think some VC coordinators get tired of it after a while and quit promoting as heavily? Is that a problem? Is there anything we can do about it?
Did you get training on how to use VC in the curriculum when you started coordinating VC? (If you need some training on using VC in the curriculum, I have a class or two coming up!) How do you think we can make sure more school level VC coordinators learn how to use it in the curriculum (in addition to how to dial?)