Tandberg Road Show

This morning I took a trip up to Van Buren ISD (which just was awarded a RUS grant – congrats!!). They are hosting the Tandberg Roadshow. (By the way you can see where the Road Show will be next here.)

The audience here is mostly tech coordinators from the surrounding districts. Many of them are expecting to get VC as part of their new RUS grant.

The program began with an introduction to VC by Doug Meyer at CILC. He gave an overview of content providers, collaborations, professional development, and of course the CILC Content Dollar Bank.

Then we headed off to the Pro Football Hall of Fame to learn about their programs and had a nice overview, plus a little history of the Detroit Lions.

Lance Ford was the next guest speaker and he told us the story of the Howell videoconference story beginning with a foreign language class. Their courses are supported by Moodle and Rosetta Stone in addition to the live videoconferencing. Fun quote: “those standards are weighing on teachers like a wet blanket on a hot August afternoon.”  His examples included content providers, Mote Marine, Great Barrier Reef, as well as collaborations – book clubs with Canada, DNA experiments, connections to Norway, etc. Students creating a field trip (the KC3 program) is another major part of their programs. Lance showed a video clip of students onsite at a local museum dressed in costume teaching about the westward expansion. Lance’s superintendent asks him to have a matching dollar for every dollar the district spends. They call it “leveraging” dollars. Lance uses grants to match other grants to get even more funds for technologies.

Next we heard from Stephanie about the grant program Tandberg will help you (for free) write grants to get videoconferencing. Finally we got a tour of the truck with all the equipment. I had some good time networking with the tech coordinators as well, many of whose districts are members of our REMC. Great morning & very informative!

Eco-Conversations: Water Bottles

Today Buchanan Middle School has four Eco-Conversations connections, two with the UK (Wigan and Torfaen), one with Ontario, and one with Texas. Our focus for these sessions has been on water bottle pollution.

Our class prepared posters explaining the effects of water bottle pollution, including pictures of the local environment. The classes have been collecting water bottles to recycle and they have a mattress bag full of water bottles.

Eco-ConversationsThe first session was with a school in Wigan, and they told us about their recycling program. The real learning in this connection happened in the question and answer time. For example, the two classes shared where they have access to recycling. In Wigan, they can recycle all kinds of things including clothes and shoes at the supermarket. We don’t have EcoConversationsthat in our area – mostly just plastic recycling at the grocery store. Another question from our class was, “Do you think our accents sound different?” which started a discussion of how we sound different to each other. Our class also showed a toy car made out of water bottles and an RC engine. The students in the UK loved it.

Our second session was with a school in Torfaen, Wales. Both teachers in this session are graduates of the Jazz workshop. Our class shared an introductory PPT about their community with pictures etc. EcoConversationsOur partner class had posters and pictures to talk about recycling and reducing their carbon footprint, complete with footprint notes. They talked about the costs of water bottles, and the lack of fluoride in bottled water for young children’s teeth and bones as well as other environmental issues. Their eco club told us a story of correcting their principal in his use of electricity. “I was shamed in front of the school,” he said! Everyone is learning together to reduce their consumption. Then our class had each group share their posters about water bottle issues and the water bottle pile and toy. Then the class in Wales asked our students questions. Both classes asked each other about their sources of information. Our friends in Wales have required recycling, but we don’t know of anywhere in the US that has a law that everyone has to recycle. We learned about “Dan the Can” and the students drew and colored pictures of him and brainstormed some other possible projects between the classes. Eco Conversationswe found out that it’s free to recycle in the UK, but we have to pay extra to recycle. Our partner class started their eco club 4 years ago and won this flag for their work in the community, planting trees, educating others, showing how they are saving energy, etc. They are understandably very proud of their flag!

Our third session was with a class in Barrie, Ontario. Both classes shared presentations with each other. The class in Barrie surveyed the students in the school and found that the students thought bottled water tasted better. Then they did a blind taste test and they preferred the tap water! They included both US and Canada stats in their presentation and had Recycle Bingreat pics to illustrate their facts. During Q&A time the classes ask each other several questions that had a show of hands: how many drink tap water at home? how many recycle water bottles? how many like water bottles? It was a great way to compare and see how well the students at both classes were applying their learning. The class in Ontario showed us their recycling bin too.

Our fourth class connected to McGregor, TX. They had lots of great facts and issues about water bottles including the amount people spend on water bottles, the issues of BPA plastic, etc. The students really enjoyed sharing, and our teacher shared with the TX students some of what we learned from the other classes this morning.

We have one more section that is connecting to a class in British Columbia in November after our state testing is done. This project has again been a great experience for our students!

Transactional Distance in Videoconferencing

This post is part of a series examining articles on the communication aspects of videoconferencing.

Reference Chen, Y. J. (1997). The implications of Moore’s theory of transactional distance in a videoconferencing learning environment. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 9802605)

Summary:

This study compared Moore’s (1972) theory of transactional distance to the use of videoconferencing for teaching at a distance. The theory is that transactional distance (the distance of understanding and perceptions) has to be overcome by the teachers & learners for effective learning to occur. Moore suggested that lower structure and higher dialogue would yield less transactional distance.

Chen studied 121 participants in twelve videoconferencing classes in several subject areas. Results included that dialogue includes in class verbal communication, face to face interaction outside the class, and communication via email. The structure of the course included the design or organization of the class and also the delivery and implementation. Chen found that Moore’s theory isn’t specific enough in these areas of dialogue and structure.

The students perceived greater learning from greater frequency of in-class discussion. The greater the reported transactional distance between teacher and learners, the less the perceived learning.

Those were the only two factors that made a difference in perceived learning.

The study also found that out of class electronic communication was not supported as an effective practice; however, by the sounds of it, the use wasn’t required and therefore was low. If deliberate, interactive, engaging discussions were set up, would this result be different?

Suggested Strategies for Teaching Via VC

  • Additional training for teachers and students before courses occur
  • Planned class section where all sites meet in person at the beginning of the semester
  • Setting up a listserv for online communication
  • Creating group dynamics and a collaborative learning environment
  • Building consensus between/among sites through interaction among peers

Discussion/Reflection

  • It’s interesting how important the in-class discussion was in this study. How do YOU create discussion across sites? Good models are GNG‘s Pulse programs; some of the Jazz interactions; what else?
  • Don’t you think that many other Web 2.0 tools if chosen carefully and used deliberately could be more effective than a listserv? Of course this was published in 1997 which is seriously old in Internet time.
  • What other things do you see as important to a videoconferencing class?

Media Richness Theory

Media Richness Theory
Media Richness Theory

Isn’t this a cool little theory?! It shows the richness of the communication – how personal, how interactive, how effective.

Let’s ask ourselves though, does effective mean more synchronous? does effective mean more asynchronous?

Compare Media Richness Theory to this chart by Wesley Fryer:

What other comparisons can be made? What framework do you find for thinking about these tools? How do you decide which one to use for which purpose? Have you seen any similar comparisons? Please share!

Links for ESU 10 Nebraska

Greetings to my Nebraska ESU #10 audience. Here are a collection of links and resources mentioned in my presentation, plus more!

Collaborations Around the Planet

Read Around the Planet

More TWICE Information

Information for Collaborations

Content Providers

Berrien RESA Links

More Information

Videoconferencing Implementation

This post is part of a series examining articles on the communication aspects of videoconferencing.

Reference Baber, J. R. (1996). Re-visioning corporate communication: A case study of videoconferencing implementation. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 9700122)

Summary

This study was more on the implementation of corporate communication via videoconferencing than on the actual communication. Still useful and interesting.

Baber (1996) offers the Culture-Process-Technology approach as a framework for the successful implementation of videoconferencing in the corporate environment. The framework recommends:

(1) that organizations should ensure that managers at all levels are willing to support the implementation process; (2) that videoconferencing “champions” be found to administer the system at the project level; (3) that operator training programs be developed to create a wide base of skilled end users; (4) that conference schedules be published regularly to inform end users of meeting times and to sustain ongoing interest in videoconferencing; and (5) that use of videoconferencing system features be consistently modeled to encourage the use of innovation and the re-invention of technology. (p. 128)

Application/Discussion

Do you have these principles in place in your school?

  1. Do you have a principal/ administrator supporting the implementation of videoconferencing in your school? What does that support look like?
  2. Do you have a champion for VC in your school? (probably you!)
  3. Are a lot of people getting skilled with using VC? Can your teachers mute & unmute? Can they use presets (if they are set for them ahead of time)? Can they dial if they are given the IP?
  4. How do you organize and publish schedules? Is your system working for you?
  5. Are interesting and innovative ways of using VC celebrated and communicated?

What else do you think is important for implementation?

Desktop VC Tasks

This post is part of a series examining articles on the communication aspects of videoconferencing.

Reference Slovacek, C. L. (2003). Desktop video-conferencing tasks: The effects of telepresence and teledata on cognitive load, conversational repair, and satisfaction. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertation. (AAT 3113579)

Summary

This interesting little study examined what people pay attention to in a desktop point to point videoconference. They found that while people are more satisfied when they can see their partner, they focus most of their attention on the object, task, or document that they are working together on. They are also more focused on listening to the person at the other side. The author suggests that audio & data streams are more important than the video stream.

Reflection/Application

  • I certainly agree with audio being more important in a videoconference. You can live with a little video breakup, but if you can’t understand the other site, you may as well give up.
  • It’s interesting that in this case they found the data as critical as well. In this study the participants were working together on a document or task, so that certainly makes sense.
  • The author talks about cognitive load – especially increased when seeing yourself. Do you ever notice someone who’s distracted by the videoconference? That’s higher cognitive load. Those of us who are used to VC can handle quite a mess on the screen and keep going with our presentation. But not as easy for newbies. Too much cognitive load. Brain working too hard!
  • When the participants reported higher cognitive load, they were less satisfied. So what can we do to reduce the extra thinking that happens in early use of videoconferencing?

Your Turn: It seems again that turning off the picture and picture for students in a videoconference would help them focus more on the content. What do you think?

Videoconferencing Across Cultures

This post is part of a series examining articles on the communication aspects of videoconferencing.

Article Reference Dustdar, S., & Hofstede, G. J. (1999). Videoconferencing across cultures – a conceptual framework for floor control issues. Journal of Information Technology, 14(2), 161-169. doi:10.1080/026839699344656

Summary

What are you things that you do in a face to face meeting that are hard to do in a videoconference multipoint videoconference meeting?

  • Stand up, pace or gesture menacingly if you want to impress authority on others
  • Fidget to signal that you want to talk
  • Hum or gesture to indicate support or criticism

Floor control is who gets to speak and what mechanisms are used to see who can speak in a meeting. These meeting norms may also be different based on cultures.

This article was considering desktop videoconferencing where people pay for the videoconference and want a quality meeting experience. Only one person can have the floor (permission to speak) in an electronic meeting.

Cultural differences noticed in this study are Hofstede’s 5 Dimensions: power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, competitiveness vs. cooperativeness, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term vs. short-term orientation.  (Take a moment to just read the quick wikipedia overview. It’s interesting!)

Differences in culture can affect what method of getting floor control is used. Maybe the person with high prestige is the person who says who gets to talk. Or everyone just jumps in and sometimes talks on top of each other. Floor control becomes more & more important the larger the meeting is. The differences in culture can lead to severe communication breakdowns that are magnified by the videoconference.

Other challenges in a videoconference meeting include:

  • Saying yes or hmm mm, or mm to let a listener know that you agree or are hearing. With all the sites muted, you can’t get this feedback.
  • You can’t turn to your neighbor for a side conversation. (This can make meetings get done faster! On the TWICE board which meets only twice a year face to face, many of us also use Skype, so we can Skype chat with each other if we have a side comment. )
  • There might be other people in the room listening to what you have to say that you can’t see. In my opinion, it’s really rude to be part of a meeting and let someone listen who isn’t part of the group. They should be shown on screen & introduced.

Suggestions for applying culture understanding to cross-cultural meetings:

  • Individuals from low power distance cultures should get used to waiting for a silence before they talk. Wait time!
  • With a variety of power distance cultures, one should make sure that all participants are invited to give their feedback.
  • Laying out the rules of the meeting up front will be helpful for everyone. Who will get to talk & when? If you want to talk, how do you get permission? Figure it out and tell everyone!
  • Make sure the participants know who is in the “meeting room” and something about them. It should not be “on the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog.” People only feel comfortable when they know something about the other people in the meeting.
  • Plan to orchestrate the meeting more than a face to face meeting.
  • Be sure to stay within the stated time length of the meeting.

Suggestions for designing software include having all these capabilities:

  • A way to indicate you want to interrupt
  • A way to show people’s responsibilities
  • A way to grant floor privileges to others
  • A way to know more about the other participants
  • A way to have a side-chat
  • A formal protocol

In my opinion, without software, these can be designed by the meeting leader with a little thought and creativity.

Application

  • This article had great tips for meetings, whether cross-cultural or not. If the meeting leader considered these ahead of time, it would make for a smoother videoconference meeting.
  • It would be so interesting in a high school international videoconference to discuss the five dimensions of culture and compare notes. This would help raise students’ awareness beyond “what do you eat” and “what music do you listen to” so that they have a deeper understanding of cultural differences.
  • Raising awareness of these issues before an international videoconference may make students and teachers alike more sensitive to the needs and perceptions of the other class.

Your Turn: What do you think? What tips do you want to apply in your next videoconference meeting? What about in your next international videoconference?

Jazz is a network of dense clusters

Have you read Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody? Or at least watched his 20-min presentations on TED Talks? here and here.

A Network of Dense Clusters web graphic by Dave Pollard
A Network of Dense Clusters web graphic by Dave Pollard

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?

Communication via Videoconference

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

From Amela Sadagics Megaconference V Digital Art Gallery
From Amela Sadagic's Megaconference V Digital Art Gallery

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.

Reminds me of the collection of Megaconference-random-digital-art from Megaconference V in 2003. Switching pics between speakers has gotten a lot better, hasn’t it?!

Summary

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?