Socialised Learning in Video Conferencing John Morgan Aberystwyth University Invite Project partner presentation: Socialised learning NOW! Lifelong learning tomorrow 12:05-12:35 Alena Hradilová, Libor Štěpánek

Inside the abstract The current increase in video conferencing in higher education has significant implications for learning and teaching. It re-addresses the nature of “appropriate” academic communication, especially where learning outcomes and discourse structures have been determined prior to the introduction of video conferencing in courses. This study reflects on processes of socialised learning to suggest that socially appropriate communication roles cannot be taught explicitly; they are acquired by interaction and negotiation between participant groups. By considering the nature of communication in video conferencing along with some of the facilitating conditions for framing of communication aims, I will argue that communication in higher education does not need to be explicitly “academic” and can be more “functionally oriented” to social and professional interests.

Communities of practice Shared history Collective identity Reciprocal obligations Discourse new video conference 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)

Socialised learning The concept of “socialised learning” suggests that participants may learn effectively (but not always best) through interaction that is structured and facilitated within social or learning groups. This means that the classroom and learning methodologies can be centred around a socially oriented framework of decision making—within class and within formal syllabus specifications—as a parallel activity to formal learning outcomes. Within this framework it is possible to engage in video conferencing activities with a partner institution (Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic), across parallel academic programmes with different learning outcomes. At the same time social outcomes interweave with all levels of communities development. Despite the fact that student teams are graded for formal presentations in the learning outcomes (differently in each institution), we have deliberately kept the video conference room as a “social space” within our programmes.

Researching socialised learning Donald MacKenzie (1993: 7) argues that “[T]hose of us who research social processes are seldom able to set up our own experiments. We have to wait for the world to do it for us. The passage of time, and changes it brings in the factors and phenomena that interest us, are our single best resource” (in Whitley, 1997). We can conduct educational research into the phenomena that are measurable by learning outcomes, but to define processes that measure learning in the “social space” of a course leaves us subject to our participants and their interpretation of the world. Too much guidance or control interferes with the very nature of social interaction. Despite this though, it is very difficult to take a back seat to all the planning and organising; the design of video conference discussions and presentations. The importance of socially negotiated design formed the basis of my last two Diverse presentations in Glasgow and Lillehammer. Design though is very much centred around strategic interaction and exchange.

“What’s in it for me?” Three particular questions are explored by McCarthy and Hatcher (2002: 14-15) around the issue of learning to answer questions strategically. “What’s in it for me?” Listeners need a reason before committing themselves to what can be a demanding mental process. “What do I want to say?” We have aims according to our own reasons for speaking and we make demands of our listeners. “What is the most effective way of constructing and presenting the particular things I want to say to achieve my purpose?” Will my listeners make adequate concessions to my demands on their time? Without guidance video conference participants set out to design discussions or presentations according to their own aims, but in so doing—and especially where there is no clear sense of shared history or collective identity around what has been learned in class or is common knowledge in a given culture—it is easy to tune out an audience.

It’s easy to assume… It’s easy to assume that others will be interested in our own presentations, or will be able to discuss it from perspectives that match our own. These students had little collective identity or shared history and not knowing audience characteristics at this level can easily result in the reaction we see here.

From Kosovo to ancient Egypt & Greece More recent video conferences were centred around team projects in: Aberystwyth U.Death ceremonies in ancient Egypt Aristotle and his influence on science Problems in language learning Masaryk U.Animal testing Forgery in fine arts Brno: culture, history, sports And the design of video presentations/discussions for all these topics had the potential for inducing the “Kosovo effect” seen in the last video sample.

Design  Participation To counter this possibility at the same time as enhancing participation we set up a “mute mic” activity around each of the topics. After each topic was introduced by a loose interpretation of a spoken abstract (background, focus, methods of investigation, discussion or analysis, overall relevance/value), we went back to our remote groups to answer three simple questions for our remote partners: “What do you want to know?” “What do you want to see?” “What do you want to be able to discuss?” Answers to these questions immediately placed emphasis on audience in a way that goes beyond the immediate call to “learn their demographics” (McCarthy and Hatcher, 2002: 15). It focuses critical aspects of the design from an audience or user perspective. Where interaction is designed by individuals or teams without this intermediary stage, it runs the risk of being too specific as we saw earlier. By including this stage we bring in a much more social aspect of participation.

Designed for participation While some presentations lend themselves to the use of DVD or video recordings (e.g. interviews, pre-filmed content) and some work well by Powerpoint, others can be equally well received via less advanced media, such as document cameras, or even hand written posters displayed in front of the camera. The last course we worked with was held just before a complete upgrade to the video conference suite at Aberystwyth and we ran into all kinds of technical problems. Despite this we found that because students were focused very much on what the audience wanted to know, see and discuss, they appeared to be more confident in the face of operational difficulties. The goal of the design had become information and dialogue rather than expertise of presentation. In prior conferences—at earlier stages of the research—I advised students to focus more on the design. On reflection this created greater anxiety in their expectations for expert delivery and reception of the presentation. This more socialised process focuses more on the participation and how design is used to facilitate that participation.

It’s not about the technology This level of socialised participation emphasises that effective communication is not necessarily about the effective use of the most advanced technology. This would be a bonus, but we face numerous operational problems: from limitations of how much users know about how the technology works; from limitations in the equipment available, how old it is and what it will work with. What matters more at this stage in building communities through effective participation is the use of the most effective technology to facilitate a clear presentation and dynamic discussion. The research continues, but here is a collection of still images from streamed recordings of our video conferences.

Plan A: Animal testing—mixed media

Plan A: Art forgery—Powerpoint

Plan A: Aristotle—Document camera

Plan B: Egypt—Powerpoint + camera 2 Aberystwyth question: “Is it OK for you to read over there?” Masaryk reply: “Yes, it’s quite alright.”

Plan B: Language—Word + camera 2  Camera 2 max. zoom Turn it around and see what happens   What they see now Camera 1 beginning to zoom 

Back to plan A for the big finale And they were even offering prizes!

Working papers and conference links Welsh Video Network Conference, Aberystwyth, 2005 Diverse Conference, Glasgow, 2006 Invite subject village web-site Live Sociology photographic essay Video Funet Conference, Tampere, Finland Diverse Conference, Lillehammer, Norway, 27 th -29 th June, 2007Diverse Conference, Lillehammer, Norway, 27 th -29 th June, 2007 Diverse Conference, Haarlem, Netherlands, July 1 st – 3rd, 2008Diverse Conference, Haarlem, Netherlands, July 1 st – 3rd, 2008 Diverse Conference, Aberystwyth, June 24 th – 26th, 2009Diverse Conference, Aberystwyth, June 24 th – 26th, 2009

Acknowledgements The work presented here could not be done without the help of: Video conference participants: EL27720 students, Aberystwyth University English language students, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic Invite Project partners in the Czech Republic, Spain & UK: Hana Katrnakova, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic Alena Hradilová, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic Libor Štěpánek, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic Barbora Budiková, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic Santiago Posteguillo, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain Janice de Haaff, Aberystwyth University Martin Ashe-Jones, Aberystwyth University Technical support team in Aberystwyth: Tom Fernandez, Information Services, Aberystwyth University Nigel Thomas, Information Services, Aberystwyth University Martin Pugh, Information Services, Aberystwyth University Geoff Constable, Welsh Video Network & Information Services, Aberystwyth University

References (1) Baron, N.S. (1998). “Letters by phone or speech by other means: the linguistics of ”. Language and Communication: 18, Pp (2) Coles, M. & Hall, C. (2001). “Breaking the line: new literacies, postmodernism and the teaching of printed texts”. Reading: November, Pp Oxford: Blackwell. (1) Constable, G. (date not provided). “Guidelines for Successful Video Conferencing” [online]. Available from: (Accessed 7th June, 2005). (5) Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. McCarthy, P. & Hatcher, C. (2002). Presentation Skills: The Essential Guide for Students. London: Sage Publications. (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. (6) Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge. (1) Video Technology Advisory Service (date not provided). “UKERNA Video Conferencing Meetings User Guide: A General Guide for Participants, Facilitators and Chairpersons” [online]. Available from (Accessed 7th June, 2005). Whitley, E.A. (1997). “In cyberspace all they see is your words: a review of the relationship between body, behaviour and identity drawn from the sociology of knowledge.” Information Technology and People: 10/2, Pp

What are you doing in June 2009? Wednesday 24 th – Friday 26 th June,