Language(s)

French and Italian

Learner level

Advanced

Institution

French/Italian/Project Pallas (part of IT Services) , University of Exeter

Name(s)

Contact details

Objectives

Using the Web to support language learning by videoconference

This case study covers the results of an investigation into the use of World Wide Web (WWW) when used for language teaching in conjunction with Internet-based videoconferencing. In particular, it looks at the use of collaborative web browsers, whereby the Web pages being viewed at two or more sites are synchronised

Implementation

Two sets of distance learning seminars were carried out, both with a lecturer at Aberystwyth and groups of students at Exeter; Moira Vincentelli gave seminars on Art History to students taking a course on the Italian Renaissance, whilst David Trotter gave a single seminar on the Strasbourg Oaths text. Multicast videoconferencing (see the ReLaTe project, http://www.ex.ac.uk/pallas/relate/) was used to link the sites. For the students, the videoconference was displayed on a screen using a data projector; the tutor sat at a PC, using either a headset or with speakers and an echo canceller. Alongside the video image of the tutor, the Netscape browser was used to display images of the art and manuscripts being discussed. Using the facilities for synchronised browsing included in the standard release of Netscape Communicator 4.07, when the tutor changed the URL being displayed on his local PC, the browser being viewed by the students was automatically changed. During the latter part of the seminar, students had the opportunity to ask questions of the tutor; they did this using a switched, hand-held unidirectional microphone on a long lead, which minimised problems of feedback and howlround.

Outcome

Both sets of tutorials seemed to work reasonably well in enabling the students to participate in a seminar with experts in a topic who were not available locally. In post-session questionnaires, all students answered ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Would You Recommend a Friend to Take a Similar Videoconference Seminar’. Turning to the various components of the session, the quality of the audio was perceived as reasonable (ratings varying from 70 to 99 on a scale of 0-100. In the ‘Art History seminars, in particular, however, the some participants described the audio as ‘broken-up’, ‘choppy’ and ‘crackly’. The normal expectation would probably be for the students to rate the video quality rather lower than audio; typical frame rates in Internet videoconferencing may often be around 5 frames/second, compared to television quality of 30 frames/second; in addition, the sessions did not have lip synchronisation, so watching the tutor can be likened to a dubbed movie. This was indeed reflected in some of the qualitative words used by the students, such as ‘jerky’, ‘disjointed’ and ‘delayed’. Nevertheless, overall quality ratings were reasonable, with an average of around 70 on a 0-100 scale. Critics of videoconferencing sometimes argue that slow frame-rate video may be an irrelevance for many applications and that it adds little as long as the audio is adequate. Despite this, in these studies all the students considered that having a video image of the tutor was helpful. Opinion on the quality of the art images varied amongst the students, with ratings ranging from 40 to100. One of the most difficult aspects of seminar-room videoconferencing is arranging for the students to ask questions; about a third indicated that it was more intimidating than raising a point in a face-to-face seminar; the commonest reason given was simply not knowing the tutor, but the logistics of passing round a microphone was also cited as a deterrent by a couple.

Evaluation

The overall feeling on the tutorials was that the exercise had been well worth it, although as always there was room for improvement. The web synchronisation worked fairly well, although updating of the ‘remote’ browser was no necessarily instantaneous; viewing all the images at the remote site in advance of the tutorial turned out to be a useful workaround, since it meant that the images were then stored in the local web cache and this improved speed of access. In the case of the Art History tutorials, significant problems were caused by the fact that a single image might be quite large, so that on the 800x600 data projector, it was necessary to scroll (both vertically or horizontally) to see all parts of the image. Unfortunately, the web synchronisation did not include reproducing scrolling actions by the lead site (the tutor), so that the tutor had to inform Exeter when she was scrolling; the problem was made worse by the fact that in some cases, several images had been included on a single web page. On a couple of occasions, the student site were temporarily viewing a different image than the one the tutor was talking about. However, these problems should be relatively easy to solve in future sessions. The use of a web browser was also felt in some ways to be inferior to loading individual web pages into a shared workspace tool. In particular, the ability to point to parts of an image with a cursor or underline (a standard feature of shared workspace software) was felt to be a serious omission when using collaborative web browsers for this type of visual material.

The overall evaluation of the video and audio aspects of the conference were again fairly positive. However, some simple logistical problems caused difficulties. In order for the students to view the images displayed on the data projector clearly, the light levels in the seminar room were kept low; as a result, the view of the students as seen by the tutors was rather darker than desirable. On similar lines, the simple camera just gave an overview of the whole group of the students (in fact, some at the sides of the room were almost out of shot). The tutors commented favourably that they were pleased by being able to see the group, especially the reassurance of being able to see that the students were taking notes and therefore presumably finding what was being said was relevant. During questions, however, it meant that the tutor was unable to clearly see the individual who was talking; the Art History tutor commented that something like a remote zoom feature on the camera was what would be required in an ideal world. Passing a microphone around a room also inhibited questions from the students; since these trials, low-cost echo cancellers have become available which mean that in a small seminar room, it should be possible for any of the students to be heard from their seats, but further trials would be useful to confirm this.

Project url

N/A