Modelo entidad relación

The adoption of video conferencing technology in schools has been relatively slow in comparison to higher education and commerce. Historically, ISDN connections were used for video conferencing and it could be argued that the high costs associated with maintaining dedicated telephone lines prevented the technology from penetrating school environments at the same rate as was seen in the higher education sector. More schools are now starting to use video conferencing and some would argue that this is due to the emergence of increasingly reliable IP network reliability (Merrick, 2005, p4). Furthermore, as a result of the improved networks and the availability of greater bandwidth for schools, many educators began to believe that video conferencing could be an ideal educational tool (Anderson, 2008, p110). This chapter section considers the video conferencing literature associated with educational use in schools. The themes that emerged from the literature on higher education and commerce will be considered in the context of teaching and learning in schools, and any new themes emerging from the schools literature will also be discussed.

A good starting point is the DfES ‘video conferencing in the classroom’ project (Comber et. al., 2004), which considers the video conferencing activities of 28 schools with a range of experiences and across a range of curriculum areas. The most common curriculum areas found to be using the technology were English, Geography, History and Modern Foreign Languages (Comber et. al., 2004, p7), although other curriculum areas also made use the technology, including mathematics. The findings of this study were numerous and the most relevant are discussed here.

Firstly, the DfES study concluded that video conferences could be divided into four broad categories; familiarisation, substitution, enhancement and adaptation (Comber et. al, 2004, pp23-25). Familiarisation was described as an early phase during which the participants are getting used to the equipment. Substitution involved replacing lessons traditionally delivered face-to-face with delivery through video conferencing. Enhancement, which is described as the most common usage, involves including some video conferencing sessions to support wider curriculum activities. Adaptation is described as using video conferencing to support innovative pedagogies that might not otherwise have been possible without the technology.

Secondly, the DfES report stated that video conferencing was found to be motivating for students and to increase their self confidence (Comber, et. al., 2004, pp45-47). Numerous other studies have reported similar side effects (Thorpe, 1998, p401; Gerstein, 2000, p183; Gage, 2003; Butler and Fawkes, 1999, pp46-47) including a large study about video conferencing of 52 schools across a range of curriculum areas (Austin et. al., 2003, p61).

Real-time collaboration seems to be a key factor in improving student confidence. One study described how students from two different countries collaborated through the medium of video conferencing (Harris, 2002, p452). The students asked questions in the foreign language and answered questions in their native language and it is argued that this has led to increased communication skills. Similarly, Gerstein (2000, p184) reports an enhancement in students’ communication and presentation skills as a result of video conferencing. A different study described how pupils’ self-esteem and self-identity were improved just through having the opportunity to ask questions during a video conference (Abbott et. al., 2005, p234).

p57). Implicit here is the idea that the participants’ general experience is linked to the level of interactivity they experience during a conference. Returning to Lawson and Comber (2005, p6) the point is made that over time schools begin to exploit the potential for interactivity that is inherent within video conferencing technology. This again emphasises the importance of interactivity in the context of using video conferencing technology within an educational setting. Heath and Holznagel (2002, pp10-11) make the point that whilst video conferencing technology can provide students with opportunities to develop high levels of interactivity, this does not automatically occur and must be encouraged and fostered by the presenter. Although there is general agreement on the importance of interactivity during video conferences, there is disagreement about the whether the technology itself acts as a barrier or as a facilitator of interactivity (Doggett, 2008, p35; Anderson, 2008, p112). In one study about working with special needs students from three different schools, it was argued that the formal setting of video conferences can lead to constraints on teaching style resulting in a more didactic than interactive approach (Thorpe, 1998, p396). However, Yamada (2009, pp830-831) argues the opposite, claiming that video conferencing can facilitate interactivity since participants can use non-verbal cues to promote comprehensive communication between learners.

A further finding is that additional training is required for teachers if they are to demonstrate good practice when video conferencing (Comber et. al., 2004, p38) and this is supported in several other studies (Harris, 2002, p453; Anderson, 2008, p120; Gage, 2003). This need for additional training suggests that teachers need a new or modified set of skills and techniques (Heath and Holznagel, 2002, p7; Doggett, 2008, p30). As with all technology, video conferencing has its own limitations and obstacles, but these can often be overcome with careful forethought and planning (Gerstein, 2000, p179). For example, in Gerstein’s study, the students at each endpoint had to prepare a video and a box of equipment for a particular video conference and these items needed to be exchanged in advance of the conference taking place (Gerstein, 2000, p178). This is not an activity that can be left until the last minute, particularly if the endpoints are very distant from each other, and

demonstrates clearly the need for planning. Arguably, more planning and preparation is required for multipoint conferences in comparison with point-to-point conferences because of the increased communication that may be required in advance (Lawson and Comber, 2005, p7).

Comber et. al. (2004, p26) discuss the different patterns of interaction used by schools for video conferencing in a variety of learning environments. This refers to theendpoint configuration, which is the terminology used in my study. The report suggests that schools most commonly use a one-to- many endpoint configuration, which in practice involves using whole classes (Comber et. al, 2004, p26). This may be because teachers do not want to exclude any pupils from participating in a video conference. The average class size for secondary schools in England has remained steady between 20 and 22 pupils since 1992 according to Government statistics (Parliamentary Publications, 2006). If the one-to-some endpoint configuration is to be used more frequently within schools, then this would mean withdrawing pupils from their classes since this only allows for a maximum of eight pupils at each endpoint. It may be that because of the novelty of the technology, some teachers are inclined to focus on giving students an experience of video conferencing rather than focusing on the potential learning opportunities. However, once the novelty has passed, teachers may begin to think again about the appropriateness of the endpoint configuration that they have chosen. Indeed, Gage (2003) reports that some teachers were worried about the class size being too big since they would not be able to involve all of the participants.

It was earlier argued that a one-to-some endpoint configuration was most appropriate in ensuring the participants had a virtual presence in a video conference. In the context of schools, there are similar views. Indeed, a number of studies suggested that having smaller numbers of participants at endpoints was more effective for interactivity (Austin et. al., 2003, p66; Butler and Fawkes, 1999, p47; Thorpe, 1998, p397). In considering virtual presence, it may be appropriate at this stage to

conferencing (Thorpe, 1998, p397; Heath and Holznagel, 2002, p7; Moore, 1993, p28). The theory evolved from basic insights regarding independent learning and learner autonomy (Gorsky and Caspi, 2005, p1) and became a concept describing the “universe of teacher-learner relationships that exists when learners and instructors are separated by space and/or time” (Moore, 1993, p22). In video conferencing, there is a physical distance between teachers and learners, but it should be made clear here that Moore’s theory assumes it is pedagogy that has the most profound impact (Gorsky and Caspi, 2005, p3). That is, there is a cognitive, psychological and physical distance, all of which are elements of Moore’s notion of transactional distance. This means that even in face-to- face teaching and learning environments, there is some transactional distance (Moore, 1993, p22). In relation to measuring transactional distances, it is suggested that three pedagogical variables are considered; dialogue, structure and learner autonomy (Moore, 1993, p22). However, some believe that transactional distance should be measured more statistically by considering student misunderstanding expressed as a percentage (Gorsky and Caspi, 2005, p8). The pedagogical variables above are arguably relevant to video conferencing and will be discussed later in the thesis. In comparison with other interactive media, it is argued that video conferencing can reduce transactional distance and also increase the autonomy of learners (Moore, 1993, p31).

Some research has indicated that there are sometimes issues in relation to the roles played by site facilitators at the remote endpoints (Comber et. al., 2004, p62). Such roles might include mediating, managing behaviour or additional teaching to support the presenter. As was seen earlier, site facilitators were seen as necessary to ensure that a video conference was effective (Lawson and Comber, 2005, p8). One study described a situation in which there was no site facilitator due to unforeseen circumstances (Lawson and Comber, 2005, p9). The result was confusion, which diminished the effectiveness of the session.

It may be that this leads to an underlying assumption that children will behave poorly without physical supervision, though some have still argued that participating in video conferences can improve the behaviour of the students (Comber et. al., 2004, p47). Furthermore, Thorpe (1998, p401) suggests that this positive modification of behaviour is not a result of the novelty of the technology, but rather a result of positive peer pressure and a structure which has fewer distractions. In terms of the strategies that can be used to manage students’ behaviour during video conferencing sessions, little has been written. One study reported that some teachers reminded students in advance about appropriate behaviour and manners (Gerstein, 2000, p180; Lawson and Comber, 2005, p8) and another discussed teachers’ preferences for utilising a split screen to supervise students at remote endpoints (Anderson, 2008, p114). Again, this is perhaps a reflection of the fact that site facilitators are often used for video conferencing and so remote behaviour management is not a major consideration.

One practice that could be considered a behaviour management tool is enforcing the use of video conferencing etiquette, sometimes referred to in the literature as tele-presence skills. This might include explaining video conferencing protocols in advance and muting the microphone at appropriate times during a conference (Lawson and Comber, 2005, p8). It might also include general guidance about how sessions should be conducted and perhaps such advice is most crucial for inexperienced users of video conferencing (Butler and Fawkes, 1997, p47). Furthermore, it is argued by some that the greater the number of participants, the more need there is for clear rules in the form of video conferencing etiquette (Comber et. al., 2004, p58).

Moving away from site facilitators, the other key personnel for running smooth video conferences are technical support staff. The DfES project reported that very few technical issues occurred in the 28 schools involved in the study (Comber et. al., 2004, p13). However, this is perhaps a result of

Nevertheless, the DfES project goes on to state that technical support is an important factor in improving the quality of the video conferencing experience (Comber et. al., 2004, p38) and this view is supported by the wider literature (Austin et. al., 2003, p61; Butler and Fawkes, 1999, p47). Doggett (2008, p40) goes further and argues that the technical support should also be rapid, perhaps in recognition of the live and synchronous nature of video conferencing. However, the importance of technical support is brought into focus by Lawson and Comber (2005, p8), who state that whilst teachers acknowledged that video conferencing technology was generally easy to use, some teachers were put off from using the equipment at all in case of a technical breakdown. This lack of willingness by some teachers to use unfamiliar technology is not new (Harris, 2002, p454), but could perhaps be attributed to techno-stress as discussed earlier in this chapter. Indeed, some suggest that such willingness is not a conscious decision on the part of the teacher, but perhaps inherent in their personality (Doggett, 2008, p40). A good analogy when considering the use of video conferencing technology in schools is the use of the interactive whiteboard, which has been more readily accepted into the school environment. It is believed that for the interactive whiteboard to impact on pedagogy, there must be a willingness on the part of the teacher to use and develop the technology (Miller and Glover, 2002, p18) and so perhaps the same argument holds if video conferencing is to impact on pedagogy.

One area that is discussed widely in the schools literature is how current knowledge about learning theories can be applied to video conferencing. Before looking at the schools literature, it is worth briefly outlining the relevant learning theories in a broader context. Understanding how processes of learning work is important for those who intend to develop their teaching and learning (Pritchard, 2009, p1) and hence they are of importance to my study. It is generally agreed that there are two main branches in the psychology of learning, behaviourism and constructivism, although these can be broken down further. Behaviourism is concerned with the behaviour that takes place as a response to particular stimuli and the idea is that learning takes place by repeating and reacting to

what others do. In the classroom environment, this is expressed by teachers conditioning students to respond in particular ways to particular circumstances, perhaps using routines, drill, rewards and punishments (Pritchard, 2009, p8). Constructivism, on the other hand, is more about understanding and is based on the idea that knowledge is internally constructed by the individual based on the experiences they have. Of particular relevance to this study is the idea of social constructivism, championed by Vygotsky (1978), in which the emphasis is placed on the interaction, often discussion, between the learners and others in the learning environment (Pritchard, 2009, p24). Indeed, it has already been demonstrated in this chapter that interactivity was a key theme that emerged in the literature associated with video conferencing.

Within the schools literature, some argue that the teaching strategies required in a traditional classroom are different to those required when using technology and so appropriate pedagogies and teaching strategies need to be selected (Gibbs and Gosper, 2006, p47; Eales and Bryd, 1997, p157). In the context of video conferencing, there is much support for the idea that this technology can facilitate collaborative learning if used effectively (Heath and Holznagel, 2002, p9; Gerstein, 2000, p180; Gibbs and Gosper, 2006, p48). In particular, Austin et. al. (2003, p60) argue that the constructivist theory of education requires a rich and dynamic teaching and learning environment. Here, video conferencing can facilitate students sharing ideas between endpoints, which is arguably more beneficial to them than individual study (Abbott et. al., 2005, p228). However, it should be noted that not all literature is in favour of using a socio-constructivist learning model for video conferencing as illustrated by the quote below.

“Constructivist, collaborative and inquiry-based learning models demand that students be active and engaged and that this engagement leads to significant improvements in learning and attitudes towards learning. As a stand-alone system,

teachers, other students or content needed to sustain their attention, enthusiasm and ultimately high levels of learning”

Anderson (2008, p112)

Blended learning involves using combinations of learning strategies and such an approach has the potential to significantly enhance the learning experience (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008, p3). In the context of video conferencing, this argument could be extended to demonstrate that there is ample scope for blending learning theories in practice. For example, the etiquette and routines required for the smooth running of video conferences and for developing appropriate communication skills requires a behaviourist approach, whilst the acquirement of knowledge and understanding requires a socio-constructivist approach.