Virtual Conferencing Technologies: A survey of users

Transcription

1 Virtual Conferencing Technologies: A survey of users Report of a survey on the use of Access Grid technologies across tertiary based participants January 2008 David Thorns Mary Allan Bindy Barclay Gina Chamberlain Roslyn Kerr Jenna Scott Social Science Research Centre University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand ssrc@canterbury.ac.nz SSRC Director: Professor David Thorns david.thorns@canterbury.ac.nz

2 Executive Summary Introduction A survey to gauge experiences of the use of the Access Grid video conferencing technology within the BRCSS 1 network was undertaken as part of a collaborative interdisciplinary research project between social scientists from the Social Science Research Centre, and human computer interaction scientists from the HIT Lab 2 NZ Ltd. Both groups are based at the University of Canterbury and the project is funded by BRCSS and the Capability Build Fund of REANNZ 3. The survey is part of The Role of Virtual Technologies in Creating New Forms of Knowledge project, which explores new research methods and analytic tools designed for computer-based information distribution, such as Advanced Video Conferencing and highspeed internet connectivity. Methodology The survey was designed to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Multi-choice questions were intended to provide descriptive information. Open-ended questions were intended to provide reflective and interpretive responses. The survey was initially distributed to 180 members of the BRCCS Research College community and received a 37.8% response rate. A second invitation was sent to 274 members of the wider BRCSS network, and resulted in a 25.2% response rate. Various computer software programmes including SurveyMonkey, TextSTAT, and Microsoft Excel were used in the analysis of the data. The quantitative data was processed using Survey Monkey s analysis tools, together with Excel spreadsheet functions. Using the Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) method, the research team categorised all of the qualitative responses, first around the four research themes used in the design of the survey: collaboration, socio technical environment as simulating face-to-face, socio technical spaces, and protocols. The second tier of the categorisation followed a grounded analysis of the data revealing six further categories; cultural aspects; familiarity and comfort levels in relation to the technology; technical issues - usage, and faults; comparison of Access Grid to other teleconferencing platforms; importance of content of sessions; miscellaneous. Both quantitative and qualitative data from the survey was incorporated to produce this report. 1 Building Research Capabilities in the Social Sciences 2 The Human Interface Technology Laboratory New Zealand 3 Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand 3

3 Key Findings Demographics The majority of respondents (78.9%) were between the ages of A larger number of females (65.7%) than males (34.3%) completed the survey. The majority (90.5%) of the respondents associated themselves with a university institution and 97% were from a New Zealand institution. 85.2% were associated with institutions located in the North Island compared with 23.3% of respondents from the South Island. The most commonly reported discipline was geography with 23.4% of respondents, followed by sociology with 16.1% and psychology with 9.5%. 41.6% described themselves as researchers, followed by 36.5% as lecturers. 80.3% stated that they were a member of BRCSS, while only 8.0% said that they were not a member. 79.6% stated that their institution or workplace had a node for Access Grid sessions. 81% had attended at least one Access Grid session. Almost a third of the survey respondents (31.5%) stated they had attended 1-2 Access Grid sessions, 28.8% had attended 6 or more sessions and 27.0% stated they had attended 3-4 sessions. Collaboration Respondents defined collaboration as meeting with other researchers and colleagues in order to exchange ideas and information. The three most commonly selected outcomes of the Access Grid sessions were to listen to the lecture, listen to the presenter and to discuss or exchange ideas. Collaboration and interaction with other researchers was seen as the main advantage of using the Access Grid. Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as enabling frequent communication with colleagues and other researchers. Other respondents suggested that there was the potential for the Access Grid to be used for stakeholder dialogue sessions in multiple sites. The Access Grid was seen as being of benefit to collaborative projects with other researchers who were based at different locations. The technology was seen as being better for the environment as it did not require extended travel in order to see, or participate in, the presentations, which subsequently affected the carbon footprint. The most frequent forms of contribution within sessions included sharing views (80.3%), asking questions (78.9%), and the discussion of ideas (55.3%). The majority of respondents took away new information (73.6%) or new understanding (67.0%) from their Access Grid session/s. 4

4 The potential for collaboration that the Access Grid offers was confirmed by collaborative being often used to describe the atmosphere with 52.8% agreeing that it was pleasant and 42.5% agreeing that it was friendly. A large majority of participants (99.3%) highly agreed (64.5%), agreed (27.5%) or agreed to a limited extent (7.3%) that they attended sessions due to interest in the topic. 69.5% of respondents had used some form of other media conferencing tools. Overall, the majority of the respondents were positive regarding meeting and talking to people through the Access Grids video screens and images. Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face-to-Face Interaction The survey found that in response to the statement it is possible to participate in an Access Grid session in the same way as you would in a face-to-face session 82.4%, agreed with the statement to varying extent, while only 17.6% disagreed. A total of 91.7% of respondents who had participated in an Advanced Video Conferencing session agreed to varying extent that meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face meeting. The most commonly reported aspect of similarity of Access Grid sessions compared to face-to-face interaction, was the ability to see participant s body language and reactions to ideas. This comment places Access Grid as a technology enabling the simulation of face-to-face interaction. Access Grid sessions were commonly described by those who discussed the differential aspects of the interaction compared to face to face as: impersonal, artificial, distant, detached and un-engaging. A large number of the respondents regarded Access Grid sessions as requiring a different interactive style, and accordingly, a different style of conduct, or development of a different set of protocols for this. Difficulties in discerning body language resulted in a feeling of the Access Grid session being more formal and lacking the sense of spontaneity that a face to face interaction may have. The formality of Access Grid sessions was the third most common theme derived from the data. Protocols Many respondents focused on facilitation as the key for improving sessions, suggesting that the chairing of sessions could be more effective. The largest number of comments focused on the difficulty in getting the facilitator s attention and understanding who was being addressed. Several respondents expressed a wish for sessions to begin with some form of introduction between participants to create a more comfortable atmosphere within the Grid. Many respondents commented on the difficulties of co-ordinating the large numbers of people and technologies together into a working format. It was 5

5 acknowledged that the particular assemblage of these technologies needed more specific and definite protocols to work to best effect. The majority (65%) of respondents were positive, very positive or neutral about seeing the image of their own node on the screen, although respondents also noted the difficulties interacting with participants in their own node owing to the set up of facing the viewing screen rather than each other. A number of respondents also suggested that more definite protocols for booking and attending sessions would be useful. The majority (65.1%) of respondents who had attended BRCCS meetings felt that the two hour time frame was about right for these meetings. Socio -Technical Spaces A common comment involved the difficulty of interacting with people within their own node owing to the placement of the chairs which were all facing the screens rather than each other. Several respondents commented on a feeling of overload during an Access Grid session. The large number of screens and people present potentially created confusion about who was part of the Access Grid session. Although 69.5% agreed that both the people in the room and all of the people seen on the screens were considered to be part of the group, there was not strong agreement about whether other people, such as technicians, should be considered part of the session. There was considerable concern about the reliance on the skills of technicians for sessions to proceed effectively. Many respondents commented on the strangeness of the camera being in a different place to the screens on the wall, giving an impression of no eye contact. It was clear that the atmosphere of the room strongly influenced respondents overall experience of the Access Grid. A strong theme that emerged was the way participants familiarity or comfort level with the technology influenced their view of the Access Grid and how they conducted themselves within sessions. There was almost unanimous agreement that there were certain aspects of the Access Grid, in particular the presence of the camera, which required some getting used to. 6

6 Recommendations 1. Information regarding what the Access Grid and other advanced video conferencing tools are, how they operate, their relationship to KAREN technologies and the BRCSS goals needs to be more widely distributed. Dissemination would be possible via the BRCSS and ACVCC websites. Information about exactly where the nodes are in each location needs to be more accessible. Session information needs to be more accessible and clear. 2. Session Protocols: the creation of a specific set of procedures to be followed throughout sessions across all nodes. Respondents requested more clarification at the outset of each session regarding session protocols, introduction of nodes and participants present and reminder of guidelines for any general protocols and those particular to that session. Protocols for the facilitator and other participants need to be explicit, for example, a method for gaining the facilitator s attention in order to contribute. Clarification of how camera positioning relates to the display of speakers and nodes needs to be provided. Protocols may need to be developed specifically for formal and informal session types. 3. Spaces, Node Locations and Technologies would benefit from some refinements. All nodes need to be clean, comfortable, pleasant spaces. The microphone technologies need to be improved to include consistent sound throughout the room, preventing the need for participants to physically move to where the microphone can hear them. 7

7 In sessions that are specific presentations, the volume of the microphones in other nodes needs to dimmed or turned off to avoid distracting noises such as paper rustling. The images of other nodes could also potentially be dimmed. The technology needs to be stabilised across all sites. Investigation should be made as to whether node displays at each location can be identically sized and ordered, thus reducing the dislocation some respondents reported. Technicians need a consistent standard of training and need to be present throughout all sessions. Chairs/Facilitators need to take more active role in managing session protocols. 8

8 Future Research 1. The use of the Access Grid by different cultural groups and its ability to meet different needs. 2. The potential use of the Access Grid as a teaching device. 3. Further exploration into the ideal room set up and arrangement of chairs to create the most effective sessions. 4. Exploration of methods to include a component of informal chat following sessions and the linking with other VRE communication tools. 5. Further investigation into the types of sessions taking place on the Access Grid and their specific needs. 6. Comparison of the ease of implementation of recommendations between existing Access Grid technologies and High Definitions options. 7. Further research into the effect of the inability to have informal chat after the sessions on collaboration potential as this issue was highlighted by several respondents. 9