Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
videoconference. It should be noted that by
video-lecture they mean a lecture given in front
of a camera, without the presence of a real class:
we shall call this a “synthetic” lecture, because in
most cases in literature “video-lectures” are actual
recordings of live lectures (i.e. lectures given in
front of a real audience, and not created on purpose
for distance learning). They studied live lectures,
synthetic lectures and lectures in videoconference
by analyzing the language employed, the examples
used, the rhetoric figures, the presence of humour.
Their results show that the synthetic lectures
lose many of the immediacy qualities of the live
lectures: “there are less humorous situations, the
examples are de-personalized and presented with
less succulence, contain very few questions and
with higher intensity (….) video-lectures contain
shorter and more focused examples (…) The
lecturers compensate for the lack of immediacy
by employing a more inclusive linguistic style.”
In summary, synthetic lectures are more serious,
stringent and linear, with a de-personalized and
distanced use of examples and humour. Accord-
ing to the authors, synthetic lectures are closely
associated to a scientific frame of reference: to
science as a social system. Live lectures instead
present a “more dialogic context (…) with more
humour, personal examples, questioning and
gestures. (…) such techniques (are used) in order
to reduce complexities, and supply more cues
to understand the subject matter. The lecturer's
building of trust differs similarly: the serious
video-lecture builds confidence in the lecturer
primarily as a person speaking on behalf of the
science”, whilst in the live-lecture the speaker
builds personal trust primarily as an
educator
.
In our view, these findings are not against
the use of video-lectures, but rather suggest that
video-lectures should be the recording of live
events, and not “canned” presentations. By the
way, the cost of preparing a synthetic lecture is
vastly superior to the cost of recoding a live event
(that happens anyway).
Another interesting result by Fritze and Nor-
dkvelle concerns lectures in videoconference.
Although they should in principle share the
qualities of a live lecture, this is (at present) not
the case due to the mediation of the technologi-
cal infrastructure. The difficulty of the teacher to
actually “see well” the audience induces in her/
him a limitation of gestures, walking, situated
humor, questions that in the end contribute to a
minor immediacy than obtained in live-lectures,
making lectures in videoconference more similar
to synthetic lectures.
Using the Video to Change
the Didactic Paradigm
A word of caution comes from Demetriadis and
Pombortsis (2007). They bring evidence that “e-
lectures can be safely used as students' introduc-
tory learning material to increase flexibility of
learning, but only within a pedagogically limited
perspective of learning as knowledge acquisition
(as opposed to construction)”. Their statement
echoes what many pedagogues say, when they
criticize the (traditional) lecture model because
during a lecture students are passive. There is no
space for autonomous construction of knowledge,
and often even the (potentially possible) degree
of interaction is close to zero: especially in large
classrooms, the number of students' questions
and observation is low. Teachers often respond
that they're busy covering the curriculum, and
that they have no time for fostering interaction
and stimulate discussions. As a side effect, the
expectations of certain learning styles remain
unfulfilled. Lage et al. (2000) envisioned a solu-
tion that they called “the inverted classroom”.
After presenting an interesting review of different
taxonomies of learning styles, they suggest that
events which traditionally take place inside the
classroom should be placed outside the classroom
and vice versa. In practice, they suggest that time
in the classroom should be spent only for discus-
Search WWH ::
Custom Search