Visual Angle in Videoconferencing: The Issue of Trust

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?

Please comment!

Study Results: Model to Predict Use of Curriculum VC

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.

Lim Prediction Model for the Use of Videoconferencing

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)
  • Significantly Positive: Job Title: Paraprofessional (b=31.413, p=.013)
  • Significantly Positive: Job Title: Teacher (b=11.752, p=.021)
  • Job Title: Technology Specialist: (b-.340, p=.936)
  • Years Experience with VC: (b-.517, p=.389)
  • Type of Training: Mostly Technical: (b-5.331, p=.187)
  • Significantly Negative: Time to Support VC: Other: (b-10.465, p=.050)

Educational Service Agency Support

  • ESA Creates and Facilitates Programming (b=3.165, p=.417)
  • Support from an ESA Tech Person  (b=4.486, p=.261)

Location of Equipment

  • Location: Mobile Cart (b=2.695, p=.515)
  • Location: Multiple Systems (b=-8.015, p=.104)

K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale

  • Significantly Negative: Videoconferencing Quality (b=-7.612, p=.035)
  • Coordinator’s Ability to Support VC (b=-.690, p=.897)
  • Coordinator’s Ability to Integrate VC in the Curriculum (b=-.690, p=.897)
  • Coordinator’s Ability to Work with Teachers (b=2.112, p=.518)
  • Significantly Positive: Coordinator’s Perception of Teacher Attitudes (b=24.902, p=.000)
  • Coordinator’s Perception of Principal Support (b=3.167, p=.174)

Final Discussion/Recommendations

  • This is the last post about my research. What did you learn?
  • Do you agree with the results? Why or why not?
  • How will you apply these results in your work?
  • Are these results useful to you? How so?
  • What else would you want to know to inform your work?

Please comment! Thank you for taking the time to think about and comment on my research!

Study Results: Theoretical Framework

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.

Theoetical Framework Lim & Owston

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

Study Results: K12 Curriculum Videoconferencing Implementation Scale

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

To see the full scale, see Appendix A, and questions 27 through 51.

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?

Working with Secondary Teachers

Linda McDonald and I have been having a great discussion on reaching secondary teachers to use VC, which you can read here. In case you’re not

Participating in a small group lesson planning session @ Jazz 2009.
Participating in a small group lesson planning session @ Jazz 2009.

subscribed to comments, I wanted to pull out these great tips so you don’t miss them.

Clearing the path into secondary classes:
1. Invite secondary folks to go to JAZZ
2. Follow up one-on-one with JAZZ participants and help them implement their great ideas.
3. Mention video conferencing potential to all teachers/admin. when you are out & about….and locate other potential champions.
4. Follow up, follow up, follow up with your champions.
5. When developing projects….Listen to their needs and address areas where teachers and/or students are struggling.

I love #5. LISTEN!!!

So, how are you meeting the needs of your secondary teachers?!

Study Results: Tech Support & Equipment Location

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?

Please comment!

Study Results: Time and Funds for VC

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?

Please comment!!

Energy with LearnNCO

This morning one of our middle schools has four sessions of Energy with Andy Campbell at LearnNCO. Andy’s videoconferences are some of our favorite videoconferences. He mixes hands-on activities with lots of thinking and predicting what might happen if…

Andy has a great sense of humor and really engages the students in the conversation. For each activity, a couple volunteers come up to demonstrate the experiment. All the students are involved in predicting what might happen during that experiment.

Andy models how to set up the experiment with the tennis ball on top of the basketball.
Andy models how to set up the experiment with the tennis ball on top of the basketball.

Students are learning about kinetic energy, potential energy, sound energy, light energy, transfer of energy, chemical energy and more. One of my favorite activities involves the basketball and tennis ball to show the transfer of energy. It’s always fun to hear what students predict will happen “the tennis ball will roll off the basketball”, and their reaction with the result: “whoa, wow, ahhhh!”

What makes the bubbles in the water?
What makes the bubbles in the water?

In another experiment, batteries are hooked to pencil lead in water, which creates bubbles in the water. After hooking it up, Andy asks the students how it works. What is it doing? What makes the bubbles? Students draw on their prior knowledge to figure it out.

From the sounds in the classroom, you can tell students are engaged, enjoying the activities, and expanding their understanding of science principles. Great programs, Andy!