Telepresence | Fiona MacNeill | Macknowlogist

Magical Meetings - A Review

Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0000

This post relates to of thinking about what makes an online space inclusive. I decided that UX Brighton’s monthly Show and Tell events are a good way to set mini deadlines for myself. Sometimes I use these events to present new tools or UX methods that I am using. This has now branched out to presenting the occasional book review. My review of Magical Meetings was presented at the August 2021 Show and Tell, where I fed forward my learning in an abbreviated 15-min summary. The book also got me thinking broadly about my own experiences of working in education and the soft skills involved. So, I decided to give the information some breathing space prior to writing this longer form blog post.

About the Book

The book, Magical Meetings was discussed by one of the authors, Douglas Ferguson on . Ferguson founded Voltage Control a company that focuses on facilitation including meetings, workshops, and team dynamics. They also look at workflow and transformation, considering for example how to optimise agile sprint cycles within different organisations. All of this sounded fascinating and quite different from my current work in Higher Education.

Title: Magical Meetings, Reinvent How Your Team Works Together
Authors: Douglas Ferguson & John Fitch
Publisher: Ideapress Publishing
Copyright Date: 2021

Summary

This is my own summary of the book to give you the gist.

Magical Meetings reframes the act of facilitating, attending and reporting back from meetings. It aims to empower facilitators to prevent bad meetings from taking place. It also provides strategies to support human creativity and productivity when meetings do happen.

Setting

Where did it happen?

The tips, advice, workflows and templates provided in Magical Meetings were validated through Voltage Control’s day-to-day work as an agency focused on the facilitation side of business process for software development.

When does it apply?

Magical Meetings is not talking about all meetings, rather it forcuses on: Workshops, Sales Meetings, Presentations, and Conferences. Any of these meetings can take place in-person or online.

An excerpt to give you the flavour

This is one of my favourite elements of the book, a test to establish whether a meeting should take place. In the table below, if one or more of the questions between 1 and 4 are ‘yes’ then the meeting is worth having. If question 5 is yes, then a written report, an email, or an update in a project/task management tool, such as Jira, Trello, or Microsoft Planner would be better.

The table below is a direct quotation from p. 24 of Magical Meetings.

#	Should we even have a meeting?	Test
1	Is there a clear purpose for gathering people to meet?	Y/N
2	Is there an artifact/prototype to review?	Y/N
3	Is there going to be an artifact/prototype that we can create after workshopping in the meeting?	Y/N
4	Will decisions that alter the direction of the project be made?	Y/N
5	Is this essentially a status update in disguise?	Y/N

Note

Once you start using the table above it may lead to existential unrest. It led to my own sudden realisation that many meetings, beyond my control, were indeed “status updates in disguise”.

What worked for me

There is a lot to like about this book, to summarise my key takeaways…

Meeting Purpose

The book presents ways to think about meetings as an edifice of the working environment. Turns out there are a lot of company-cultural hang-ups related to meetings and emotional needs as part of that, so it is useful to split up meeting planning and communication into sections. First is the purpose of the meeting, for which the authors provide the following criteria: “Informative, Explorative, Generative, Decisive” (p. 26). I have found these criteria useful for reflecting on my own meeting experiences, considering clarity of purpose and whether it was clear to participants what the purpose was in advance. Essentially for a meeting to be truly successful, participants must understand why it is being called, what the expectations are for their input and what is in it for them personally or as part of team working towards shared objectives. From an inclusivity perspective, the key aspect is expectations for participant input. Being able to mentally prepare beforehand for collective and group focused work is crucial for some neurodiverse people. It is also important to plan out aspects of the meeting which could be worked on individually, yet still together, to unlock ideas and to provide space for the less dominant yet equally valuable voices in the room.

Meeting Outline

The second is a meeting outline. This is essentially an agenda or schedule listing what will happen when, including activities and breaks. These elements should be mapped to the meeting purpose and objectives. The authors provide the Nine Whys¹ questions to focus in on the purpose. They suggest asking the questions at the beginning of a meeting or workshop to help get everyone on the same page. A helpful tip for communications planning was to share the meeting outline with not only with the group of participants, but also with individual participants ahead of time (p. 40). Then follow-up with a group reminder the day before. Although this is quite labour intensive, it is certainly worth it in terms of getting the most out of the meeting time.

Meeting Rules

The third is setting meeting rules. This is something, based on my own experience, that is oft overlooked but can make all the difference to making sure that all participants feel respected and that their opinions are valued. So, for example, a rule I could get behind is not speaking over people. It is something that happens frequently in web calls and can be circumvented by writing in the chat or having a notebook to hand, “save that important thought, don’t interrupt someone else’s flow”. Of course, folks can run on too long, so I have always found it helpful when chairing forums to ask that contributions are limited to two minutes. Sometimes there are technology focused rules like putting your smartphones away, as suggested by the authors (p. 29). I am less of a fan of this, as if folks are tempted to look at their phones, then this tells me that the flow of the meeting is not optimal. I take note of this, move on and improve the next iteration of the meeting.

Online Meetings and Workshops

The authors, Douglas and Fitch also note that online meetings and workshops take double the preparation time and this is certainly true based on my own experience. However, it is also possible, like a real room to be a “Meeting-Room Architect” (p. 31). In a real room this can be about arranging furniture or creating zones, something I worked on in the past through the likes of practice sharing café events and a la carte style technology taster sessions. In the virtual space this can be about the interaction between tools, so Microsoft Teams might be the room, Mural might be the participant’s own desk, Word Online might be a flipchart. As I have talked about in previous blog posts and as is starting to emerge in tools like and , the idea of a fictitious floor plan can also be a helpful McGuffin (or trigger for the plot) for an online meeting. As part of this the Douglas and Fitch propose a video orientation for online meetings and workshops, which participants watch in advance. Having tried this out, the best approach was to create a TikTok-style video with very brief steps and lasting no more than 90 secs. Otherwise, folks won’t watch it. Creating annotated screenshots or short video clips with a voiceover is a good way to stay on track.

As an aside, one of the most transformative sessions I ever attended involved sitting on chairs looking down as a single iPad on the floor and imagining it as a window (kudos to at UX Camp Brighton circa 2015 for this one). This proves that it is not always about furniture and stationery but also about imagination.

This online orientation video is too long (3:37mins). Just an example.

Do the work in the meeting

One of the key messages in the book is the idea of doing the work in the meeting. This is something that has always been a facet of my own approach when running any type of meeting, large or small. Another key concept is ensuring that the people in the room want to be there, so that the people in the room bring the right kind of energy. Therefore, making meetings optional, but providing clear communications prior to and after the meeting helps to counteract what the authors call, “FOMO” or Fear of Missing Out (p. 132). I have tried one of the recommended methods, providing a story of a meeting as a debriefing method using a story spine, number 4 on the as devised by a former artist at Pixar. It was inventive, but a little bit tricky to tweak for my meeting (which was a nationwide accessibility meeting), but certainly quick to digest and celebratory in tone.

Extra Features

The and the on the Voltage Control site are very helpful. I used the with UXUp meet-up group participants. The activity involves asking participants to recommend books, write a mini-review and upvote other folks’ suggestions. I also added a final element which was to ask participants to indicate which book they would try to read soon. I will use this as a sharing exercise again and next time I will allow podcasts and videos in addition to books, to get a fresh list of materials not only the staples. You can view the here to give you a flavour.

What did not work for me

As an educator, some of this book felt like reinventing the wheel. This is because a key idea in contemporary education is “constructive alignment” (Biggs, 1999), this is the notion that in order to stoke student motivation learning needs to be mapped to the learner’s goals. Thinking back to the , mapping activities to a set of objectives is very similar to creating a lesson plan which maps to a set of learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are essentially an educators’ objectives for their students, which sit under the larger umbrella goals of a programme of study. This book made me want to get educators and facilitators into a meeting design face-off, who would do it better? My guess is that a good facilitator from a design background and a good educator have a lot in common, something that Diana Laurillard so eloquently explored in her seminal book, Teaching as a design science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology (2012).

This got me thinking about all the hidden work that educators do, or the soft skills, and I started to list them. Once I had a sizable list I thought, maybe every design team could benefit from having a former educator, or career-break educator, on their team because this hidden work yields demonstrable value. If you would like to see , I have included it below.

Conclusion

Ultimately this book succeeded on several levels. It helped me consider best practice, it helped me reflect on my own practice, it enabled me to try out new methods, and it stimulated an emotional response of very mild irritation.

I give it a solid 4 out of 5 moons.
🌕 🌕 🌕 🌕 🌑

I recommend this book for a variety of workplaces and contexts. It provides actionable strategies for iteratively tweaking team and company culture.

“…restructure the world we live in in some way, then see what happens” Ferguson and Fitch (2021, p. 158) as quoted from , a Science Fiction writer.

References

Biggs, J. (1999) ‘What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning’, Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), pp. 57-75. doi:10.1080/0729436990180105.

Ferguson, D. and Fitch, J. (2021) Magical Meetings, Reinvent How Your Team Works Together. USA: Ideapress Publishing.

Laurillard, D. (2012) Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge.

Fiona’s List

Or why a talented educator may be a boon to your design team.

A good educator aligns every session with bigger picture goals.
Educators usually have at least three back-up plans.
Educators are used to being challenged. There is an art to knowing when to deflect, acknowledge and move on, and when to challenge an idea which is unreasonable or may mean that others in the room are excluded or made to feel unwelcome. Educators have to deal with these scenarios every day.
Who is in the room? The session, whether led or facilitated, needs to work for the people in the room. Understanding participants’ needs and motivations is key to success. An educator will think about who is in the room and why they are in the room.
A good educator spends a lot of time thinking about the language they use and adjusting it for the audience.
Educators are expert at subverting time and space. A good educator is a storyteller, a challenger, and a sounding board rolled into one. An educator can set the scene for a space and therefore get people into a more flexible mindset, ready to explore.
Educators are driven to learn, by a desire to share what they have learned.
Educators have many methods to draw from to breakthrough even the toughest shells.
Educators persistently innovate and learn from failure. A core facet of any educational training is learning how to reflect on your own work.
Educators have had to learn the hard way about when and how to take a step back. So facilitating group work is a key example where you need to provide the core ingredients and then let the group mix them together themselves.
Educators communicate in advance to ensure that people feel included and forewarned of the task and expectations.
A good educator pilots or tests a task themselves before asking students to do it.
A good educator can also wing it in a situation where preparation has not been possible. An educator’s version of winging it is based on a wealth of experience. In fact you won’t even know they are winging it. Sometimes these are the best sessions for participants as over preparation can be a ’thing’.
Educators can read just about any room. Reading between the lines in terms of empathy. An educator can tell when something else is getting in the way of the task and can find a way to help.
A good educator can build a rapport with anyone, to find out what their motivations are and what they want to learn.

A really helpful page on using the . ↩︎

Reblog - What makes an online space inclusive?

Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Originally posted on the on 05/07/21 as part of my role at University of Brighton.

A crowdsourced blog post and reflection

Back on the 15th of June I facilitated an open discussion as part of programme. The discussion, entitled, ‘What makes an online space inclusive?’ invited audience members to reflect on their own experiences in online spaces and their own practice facilitating online lessons, meetings, and events.

Session description: Think about the last online event you attended. Was there anything that made you feel included, or excluded? Did you have the option to add your pronouns? Were you actively invited to turn on your webcam, but only if you wanted to? You might even have become immersed in a collaborative exercise, almost forgetting you were on a video call! This session is a discussion focusing on how to support accessibility and inclusion in online learning spaces. Thinking about what works and what does not work and what is needed before, during, and after an online session to make it successful. This post is split into two sections, what happened at the event? and the meta level. The first section, what happened… summarises aspects of the discussion and the activity in the meeting chat. This is very much a crowdsourced blog post and I owe the vast majority of the helpful and acutely observed content to my fantastically engaged audience during the event. The second section is a reflection on my own practice and the steps that Jisc organisers took behind the scenes to support the event.

What happened during the event?

Setting the scene:

What do I mean by an online space? At the beginning of the event, I needed to establish what I meant by this term as it is a slightly lateral way of thinking about situations/events which may defined in a technical sense as webinars, online lessons, or online meetings. This is a big ask of an audience, but I wanted to encourage them to think about online space in broader terms rather than using siloed categorisations.

My definition: An online space is where groups of 3 or more people come together to meet online. These spaces are facilitated via meeting and webinar tools and the format is governed by the people who facilitate and/or attend. The format can replicate in-person meeting styles or can be specific to online.

Ingredients for an online space as an algorithm diagram

Examples to illustrate ‘format’

I provided two categories of format with examples:

In-person formats: online spaces which attempt to replicate an in-person meeting format/experience. Here are just a few of those that I listed.
- Round table, with the example meeting tool Wonder.
- Large group meeting, with example tool Microsoft Teams.
- Conference or lecture presentation
- Watch Party, with example tool Backyard.co (no longer available as of 26/06/21 - sunset due to being bought out by Discord).
Uniquely online formats: online spaces which present new modes of interaction or collaboration.
- Audio-only large group meeting, with the example of Twitter Rooms.
- Collaboration in real-time with interspersed audio, with example tool Mural.

A Twitter Room featuring hundreds of attendees with the director Edgar Wright and the original cast of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World discussing the film. The subtitle function is shown on screen, making the event accessible to all.

Questions for the audience

1. What was it like at the last online learning event that you attended?

Some folks taking part in the discussion, had just come from delivering their own training sessions with staff.
One person noted that the format of the Jisc Connect More conference was good because presenters were speaking for 20mins and then there were questions and answers for the remaining 10mins.
Another person noted that they had attended a long online event featuring multiple presenters. Some of the presenters were engaging for them, some were not. Therefore, they would have found it helpful to have a schedule for the speakers so that they could drop-in to the call when specific people were presenting.
Some folks felt that the range of tools being used during an online meeting/event, in addition to the main online meeting/webinar software, could be a little bit overwhelming.

2a. What supported your focus at the online learning event?

Being asked to do something interactive or to respond to questions.
For a person who had been teaching an online learning event beforehand, they felt that being a little nervous helped to sharpen their focus (I completely agree!).
Including a personal story or experience can help to humanise an online presentation and bring people back into the room.
Team teaching can help to support the presenter’s focus and to ensure that questions typed into the chat are addressed promptly.
Being able to see attendees’ webcam video can help when you are presenting. However, as an attendee you might not always want to share your webcam video. Sometimes there can be a mismatch in expectations or perspectives between the presenter and the attendees or participants.
Collaborating in real-time on a document with people who were equally interested/focused on a project-related goal.

2b. Was there anything that disrupted your focus at the online learning event?

Lack of closed captions being available.
No opportunity to ask questions.
Internet breaking up at the presenter’s end.
Mics left on so you get background noise from attendees’ environments.
Feeling alone at the event, like I am the only person there.
Those in shared office spaces could find their environment distracting and/or worry about background sound during an online call/session/event.
Some commentary on verbal ticks and overuse of certain terms such, as ‘so’*, ’like’, ‘you know’, ’em/um’.

*I am so guilty of too many ‘so’s’, something I try desperately to edit out in my own video tutorials and vlog entries!

3. Think of a positive experience at an online event. What helped you to feel engaged?

Someone recounted that they had attended a conference where alpacas (as in the animals) had joined during the opening session.
Using people’s names to “connect with people over the abyss” (I loved this turn of phrase).
A person noted that being asked to manage the chat for an event, had provided them with insight into the way that attendees were connecting with each other. Although while they were engaged in that they could not focus with the speaker’s content.
Several people spoke to the importance of receiving an agenda. Especially knowing the agenda beforehand and when the breaks would take place.
Knowing or hoping that there would be a follow-up email including any supporting materials and things that might have been missed.
Someone mentioned an event where the keynote panellist presented while outdoors. They said that this provided a stronger emotional engagement [comment: very interesting approach, a bit like a political speech or rally].

4. What helped you to feel included at the event?

The ability to like or react to comments. Some noted hesitancy with use of emojis to begin with, but now it is an expectation and an important part of acknowledging the value of someone else’s comment. A chat reaction is like the type of non-verbal cues that build connection in the real world; a nod, a thumbs up, clapping, a shake of the head, a shared glance.
Someone using your name when you have made a comment in the chat. A couple of folks agreed that this was important.
A best practice tip when running training sessions was to try to welcome everyone by name as they came in. Although this can be challenging in large sessions.
Having chat questions and comments included and acknowledged by the presenters.
Being able to specify gendered or non-gendered pronouns and preferred name.

5. What excludes you or makes you feel excluded during an online event?

Presenters speaking too fast.
Not allowing time for questions or providing space where the audience can think through what has been said.
Events where questions in the chat are not followed-up on and are just left floating.
Even in an online meeting space there can be a sort of feeling of an in-crowd where it can feel exclusive. Something to avoid is having a side conversation with a colleague while attendees are arriving and instead keep it more neutral and welcoming. Even if your colleague wants to chat, encourage them to wrap it up.
Folks noted events where the chat is disabled, so there was no option to engage other than when invited to ask questions at the end. This felt quite disengaging.
Not being able to see the speaker. So, no picture-in-picture option for the speaker’s camera with only the slides shown on screen.
There can be elements in the user interface for webinar tools that can be very distracting. For example, animated GIFs and animated UI elements that serve no functional purposes.
Heeding the audience when they cite audio-visual problems and immediately seeking to correct the issue/s. Having a critical friend or co-teacher who can verify and flag any sound/video issues.
Speed of speaker’s talking can make it difficult for attendees to follow. Especially in situations where bandwidth is low (so synchronisation between audio and video may not be great) and captions are limited. This can be challenging to interpret and tiring for those who rely on captions for the key information.
Too many slides with too much detail or content.

Personal Introspective

Part 1: Human Factors

What should event organisers or teachers do to help people feel included? I have paraphrased the answers below and added some commentary. You can access the original answers via the embed or link below.

Be friendly, approachable, be human.
Ask if attendees have any accessibility requirements. Provide pre-event details about how the event will run¹.
Do not say ‘we don’t have much time today’. This can be a stressor for attendees².
Allow time for any technical issues.
Make the session relevant to the group whom you are meeting with, so that the experience does not feel generic.
Greet and welcome people who attend. Remember to smile!
Provide opportunities for attendees to do something creative together (e.g., doodling)³.
Let attendees know how they should engage with the session. Provide an agenda as well beforehand.
Ask about what tech folks are planning to use beforehand to support forward planning (e.g., audio, video, 4g, Wi-Fi).
Respect the decision of attendees to keep their webcam turned off.
Provide an icebreaker or warm-up activity.

Access the first poll results, via this direct link.

Part 2: Technology Factors

What accessibility features or tools should be in-place during an event to help people feel included? You can access the original answers via the embed or link below.

Closed captions.
British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter⁴
Sending slides in advance and/or sending them afterwards.
Being told if you will receive the slides after the event.
Providing support for presenters prior to the event⁵.
Someone to help manage contributions in the chat if the speaker is mainly engaged with the live audio contributions.
Provide different ways for people to answer questions and interact during the meeting/session/event.

Access the second poll results, via this direct link.

Results and Summary

Things that help

Entries added in the chat pane are included by the presenter and acknowledged.
Open questions allowing engagement.
An agenda is sent in advance of the session.
Emojis and reactions tools.
Webcams on and off - have clear prompts and expectations for when webcams should be turned on.
Having moderators to help manage the chat.
Being able to vote-up, respond or react to other folks’ comments in the chat.
Being able to include pronouns.

Things that do not help

Too many slides with too much detail.
Presenter speaking too fast.
Questions in the chat pane that are not followed up.
No option for written chat.
Animated GIFs which run in the background with the user interface or in the chat and do not cease looping.
Distracting sounds such as typing in the background and noisy offices.

Meta Level

This section is about reflecting on how things went from my perspective as the presenter and discussion facilitator.

How I positioned myself

From the start, I wanted to be clear that I did not have all the answers and that I was the discussion facilitator. I introduced my role within the space and Laura Hutton’s (Jisc) who was helping to oversee the chat and take notes for the final summary slide. Laura and I debriefed beforehand to ensure that we were both clear on how the session would work.

How I positioned the format of the space itself

I created a virtual version of the Long Table, which was devised by performance artist, Lois Weaver (2013). I wanted my imaginary room to include everyone and provide ways for attendees to be creative.

How I verbally described my imaginary room: A long table with a paper tablecloth is shown in the centre of the room. There are pens and two microphones on the table. There are four chairs on either side of the table. The table is surrounded by chairs in an amphitheatre format, half-circle format. There is a video camera and a British Sign Language interpreter in the corner of the room with a live feed to a protector in the room. A table of drinks and refreshments are in the corner of the room. If folks cannot come to the table, then a microphone is passed to them. When people put their ‘hands up’ they were taking a seat at the table. When people wrote in the chat, they were writing on the tablecloth. Changing the feeling of ‘being’ in a space, through use of furniture, technology, or projection, and rules of engagement has long been a preoccupation of mine and virtual spaces are no different. As I noted in the , Dave White’s blog post (White, 2021) was the inspiration for my use of imaginary floor plans which have become a staple.

Things that I did to help make this session feel inclusive

I spent some time summarising the accessibility and response features that are available in Zoom at the beginning.
I provided a link to the Google Slides featuring all the questions (props to Miranda Melcher for this idea; Melcher, 2021).
I provided clear guidance for how to engage during the session and provided more than one mode for answering questions (verbally by putting hand-up, via chat - this also applied during the use of polls).
Designed the slides for accessibility with minimal and concise content. Using simple clear fonts and no white backgrounds on slides. I also used simple graphics to reinforce concepts.
I provided a warm-up question to provide folks with a trial of engagement.
I read out the content from each of the slides to the audience and verbally described the images on slides.
Reading the chat messages out by paraphrasing and acknowledging the names of the authors. Acknowledging a name pronunciation mistake.
Providing social interaction (chat and verbal), then encouraged use of the polls for more personal introspection.

Ways that Jisc supported this session

Jisc’s pre-event speaker briefing document was excellent. Providing clear expectations, an overview of the technology, and recommendations for optimising your presentation setting (e.g., lighting, sound, optimising your internet connection etc.). I was asked to join the session half an hour early and was greeted by a very helpful session facilitator (thank you George!) who ensured that the technology was working as it should and provided me with host permissions on Zoom. As mentioned, Laura Hutton from Jisc was also on-hand during the session, which was great and is essential in case of any loss of connectivity. This is yet another reason why sharing slides either via a link (e.g., Zoom) or via a files area and then posting to the chat (e.g., MS Teams) is a good idea.

Things that I would do differently next time

Improve the wording of the first question slide. As I needed to clarify the question in the chat.
Show the question slide to ask the question and then switch to the webcam view to support better discussion. Therefore, perhaps one question less to allow for that as it would take more time to switch. Although this is a function for the Wishlist as switching between sharing to webcam mosaic view is never as smooth as I would like.

Wishlist webinar function - a keyboard shortcut to switch between screensharing the thing that you last shared and the webcam-based mosaic view. I want to be able to ask the question and then prioritise the webcam display without stopping sharing completely. When you stop sharing and re-share over and over per question it leads to a delay when you are multitasking.

Considerations for teaching

There are so many takeaways here. I think the big one for me is not feeling rushed when teaching in an online format by designing my content accordingly. I did not feel rushed in this session, but it is easy to misjudge the pace and timing. Therefore, having a practice is always a good idea. I will certainly consider the speed of my verbal delivery and try to work on minimising my verbal tick of starting sentences with the word ‘so’.

One more point is that I have found myself wondering if there will be greater expectations from students in terms of technology use when we return to teaching in-person. For example, the chat and inclusive nature of the chat were mentioned a lot. For people who find it hard to formulate their thoughts and/or figure out where to come into a conversation chat has been a transformative function allowing them to express themselves. There are also occasions where students or attendees may feel embarrassed to ask a question verbally. So how can we take the things that work well in online spaces and allow them to augment our in-person classrooms? Providing multimodal means to respond may need to become as much a part of our in-person practice as it has with online teaching practice; solutions to this could be analogue or digital.

Bonus content

In the process of researching content for this post I came across this brilliant video about BSL for popular technology terms. I love the ways that technology words and concepts have been translated into signs. I particularly loved ‘Internet’ and ‘Google’.

References

Eventbrite (2019) ‘ ’, EventBrite Blog, 23 June (Accessed: 14 June 2021).

Melcher, M. (2021) CPD Webinar: What students actually want from online learning: results from a university-wide study of student digital accessibility needs [Google doc]. Available at: (Accessed: 31 May 2021).

Weaver, L. (2013) ‘ ’, LADA Live Art Development Agency (Accessed: 14 June 2021).

White, D. (2021) ‘ ’, David White, 1 February (Accessed: 13 March 2021).

Tip: this should be done prior to a meeting/session/event. During the meeting/session/event start by providing an overview of the general accessibility features of the tool that you are using. ↩︎
This is such a brilliant observation as we all know that online events need to be shorter due to screen-time. However, we need to design and create content for the medium rather than trying to cram too much in - this is my key piece of learning from this event. I have been guilty of this on occasion, and I am going to work on designing my sessions to feel content-rich without coming across as time-poor. ↩︎
This was something that I thought about doing during this session but decided against it as I try to stick to a rule of two when it comes to using technology in sessions. So, when you have a webinar/online meeting tool you are already using one piece of technology, during Jisc Connect More this was Zoom. My second technology was the polling software, Poll Everywhere, as I wanted the audience to think about their answers individually and then vote up others’ answers as well. This is easier to achieve in MS Teams with the chat reaction buttons, but not possible in the Zoom chat and polling tools that we were using that day. I was also providing access to my slides on Google slides which could be taking up another browser tab or window if folks chose to have that open. I am not counting that as an extra, but it is always worth trying to mentally picture the context and content of your attendees’ screens when you are designing an online session. ↩︎
This was done very well at the Accessibility London event for Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2021, here is another example of a bilingual design webinar where two languages were signed. ↩︎
I think that that the team at Jisc did a fantastic job of this and it is something that I have commented in my reflection. ↩︎

A technical perspective on a telepresence robot

Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0000

From January until May 2019 the eLearning team evaluated the AV1 robot avatar, a telepresence robot manufactured by the company No Isolation, based in Norway. This post aims to provide a brief overview of what we learned during our pilot project.

Controlling the robot at Falmer campus from Moulsecoomb

Our findings are shared with the caveat that they are specific to our institution and in different circumstances the end-user acceptance of the technology and the results may have varied.

About the pilot

This pilot project was designed to establish the functionality of a telepresence robot, the AV1, with a view to providing a bookable service for eligible students in the future. The AV1 robot’s purpose is to provide an avatar for an individual student who wishes to attend a class but may not be able to be present in-person. Such a student, due to circumstances including, but not limited to, medical conditions, learning disabilities or caring responsibilities could benefit from attending virtually from home or in an alternative location. The AV1 robot provided a different type of value proposition when compared to existing solutions such as video conferencing; it provided an individual, encrypted connection to the classroom for a single student user.

The aim of this pilot project in the first instance was to establish the functionality and usability of the AV1 robot device. We planned to do this by inviting students from a specific school to participate in testing the robot during a class session. These students were invited irrespective of need as it was not possible to target a specific student population, for instance those with learning support plans. We had hopes that having established the functionality of the robot we could progress to a second phase of the project. This second phase would be in collaboration with colleagues who work to support students directly so that we could make the technology accessible to those students who need it.

AV1 Robot

How does the telepresence robot work?

The robot unit is positioned in the classroom for the student and then the student uses a phone or tablet to control the robot’s line of sight and display facial expressions on the robot’s face from afar. The phone/tablet can also be used to ask the instructor questions and to access the video stream. For the privacy of other students, any recording facilities on the smartphone/tablet are disabled. The video stream therefore is also time-specific, just as it would be for in-person attendance at a lecture. The robot also allows for a level of anonymity if desired, so the student can choose to silently observe and attend the lecture or seminar without calling attention to their absence or revealing their identity.

We created¹ this video to provide a quick description for student of how the robot works…

Aims for the pilot project

We have provided some information about the proposed research methods at the bottom of this post. The aims listed below are provided with an indication of how successful we were at achieving each.

Aim #1

To establish the utility of the device in lecture and seminar settings.

Aim #1 - Result

We were able to test the robot in two seminars sessions through technical staff use (no use by students). We did not use it in a lecture setting due to scheduling.

Aim #2

To build expertise in Information Services, as such devices may be recommended as assistive technologies for students in the near future. It is important to establish the telepresence robot’s function and how to accommodate such devices on the wireless network.

Aim #2 - Result

We were successful in this area, both the eLearning team and our colleagues in network services learned about how the robot worked on our network.

Aim #3

To understand the student experience of using the telepresence robot from a location beyond the classroom.

Aim #3 - Result

We were unsuccessful. The robot was demonstrated to two different groups of students in different year groups and the pilot project failed to recruit.

Aim #4

To establish the telepresence robot’s suitability to potential requirements and understand the limitations of the technology.

Aim #4 - Result

We were successful in learning about some of the requirements and also understanding the limitations of the technology in our particular setting.

Aim #5

To understand how the presence of the robot affects the taught environment, including the experiences of academic staff who teach with such a device present in-place of a student.

Aim #5 - Result

We were unsuccessful in this venture as we were not able to test the robot in situ without the presence of a technical staff person in a naturalistic way due to not having student participants.

What actually happened?

While we sought ethical approval for user testing, the robot went on a little roadshow to meet members of staff. It was introduced at one of our regular ‘All things eLearning’ tech afternoons and was enthusiastically received by staff. The robot was also taken to meet the university’s disabilities and dyslexia team, who were interested in how the technology could be used to support students. During this time the robot was tested in a few locations at the university’s Falmer and Moulsecoomb campuses. Colleagues in network services also spent some time testing the robot to establish the network load of the streaming video functions. Everything seemed hunky dory and ready to go.

After ethical approval was gained. A small number of willing academic staff were recruited, and the robot was taken to visit two separate classes by a member of the eLearning team. These class visits were put in place to demonstrate the robot’s capabilities, to explain the aims of the project and to allow for recruitment of student participants by a neutral third-party² This is where our story takes a downturn.

During the first class visit we discovered some limitations related to connectivity. The AV1 can automatically assess the available network connections and choose the best connection based on signal strength. This is a helpful trait, but we encountered an issue where the robot routinely dropped off eduroam. We would have liked to be able to enforce which signal the robot selected, but we had no control of this setting. As a result, the reliable little robot failed spectacularly when confronted with the 4G connection in the South Downs National Park where the Falmer Campus is based³. There is an assistant app which allows for a level of technical oversight, but the controls were too basic for our needs and did not include any diagnostic functions. Alas, the robot did not give a good first impression through a combination of circumstances. No Isolation were great at working with us to resolve the Wi-Fi issues and willingly took onboard feedback related to the robot control apps. Another class visit was arranged.

During the second class visit the robot was demonstrated successfully, but the video stream was very poor quality as the signal once again reverted to 4G having been on WIFI successfully earlier in the day. Other devices in the room were connected to WIFI. What was different about this visit is that the students were not keen on the robot and their response to its presence seemed to imply an air of ‘uncanny valley’⁴. They didn’t want the camera to look in their direction and there was a feeling of unease in the room.

Testing the AV1 robot out in a classroom

Personal reflection from project lead

There are a variety of factors that led to the early cancellation of this project, but the main reason was lack of student study participants. To reflect, this could have been due to the time of term and the proximity to assessments. Another point is that as the main researcher on the project, perhaps I did not articulate the value of the tests adequately. I also could not pay students or offer them any incentives for participation beyond helping other students; for time-strapped students with many competing demands this may not have been enough. If the project had been working with a small focus group of students in different settings, that could have worked better, particularly if those students were in need of such a solution. However, such a venture would require a different group of stakeholders than we had for this basic pilot.

From a technical standpoint I felt that the staff overhead was too high to be sustainable. On a logistical level we would need a person to take the robot to the correct building and lecture/seminar room at the correct time and to then coordinate with the student user to ensure that they were able to connect. Furthermore, the assistant app for remote support of the robot was not yet sophisticated enough to meet our needs in terms of providing diagnostic information about the robot and its connectivity.

In our proposed service model, the robot would belong to the university and could be borrowed; based on testing the robot is not really designed for that type of deployment. In reality the robot really has a one-to-one relationship with the student, and it is not easy to reset it for use with a new mobile device without contacting support and requesting a new activation code. For instance, it would not be possible to have a service where a student could call/email our help desk and request a telepresence robot for their session in the afternoon, as their phone/tablet needs to be coupled to the robot. That is not something that we could do easily on an ad hoc basis from afar and it would then need to be reset again to allow the next student borrower. The ideal use model is that the robot _is _a representative of an individual student in the classroom, which is fine, but implies that the student also owns the equipment themselves. In our HE context, it may be that students would not need such a service for all their lectures, but for example only on particular days where they might have had a flare-up of a health condition. So, in our borrowing model, we would have to provide an iPad to couple-with the robot and that iPad would have to stay with the student for as long as they used it.

Following on from the point above, I believe that a borrowing model could work in HE for planned leave such as, maternity/paternity, medical and personal. Maternity leave has already been explored by a pilot project at the University of Oxford (European Bioinformatics Institute, 2018). In these cases, it would be possible for a student to pick up the robot’s accompanying iPad prior to going on leave and then keep the iPad for the duration of their leave, so that they could attend classes. This also implies that there would be a need for more than one robot and for there to be means-tested or referral-based eligibility criteria. Without considerable service planning, it would be easy to see that such a service might be underutilised in the reality of a busy HE setting.

Verdict

There is certainly potential for a future service provision, but more sophisticated management tools are needed for HE settings. Anecdotally speaking, the reaction of some students to the aesthetic design of the robot suggests that a different approach may be needed for the device to feel appropriate for adult learners.

References

Gibbs, G. (1988) _Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods_. Further Education Unit. Oxford Polytechnic: Oxford.

European Bioinformatics Institute (2018) _Meet the robot avatars helping Cambridge students combine education and motherhood_. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/meet-the-robot-avatars-helping-cambridge-students-combine-education-and-motherhood (Accessed: 24 October 2018).

No Isolation (2018) _The impact of AV1 on children with long-term illness and absence_. Available at: https://www.noisolation.com/global/research/the-impact-of-av1-on-children-with-long-term-illness-and-absence/ (Accessed: 24 October 2018).

Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A. and Thomaschewski, J. (2017) Design and evaluation of a short version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S). _International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence,_ 4(6), 103-108.

University of Edinburgh (2019) _Reflection toolkit_. Available at: https://www.ed.ac.uk/reflection/reflectors-toolkit/reflecting-on-experience/gibbs-reflective-cycle (Accessed: 26 March 2019).

Research methods

The following qualitative research methods were planned:

A testing session would be arranged during a scheduled class. The student would have attended remotely during the class and would have been asked to use the telepresence robot independently after receiving basic instruction.
The student would have been asked to complete a short questionnaire at the beginning of the session prior to use. A second version of the same questionnaire would have been repeated at the end of the testing session. The core questions are based on a validated user experience questionnaire (UEQ-S; Schrepp, Hinderks and Thomaschewski, 2017).
Anonymised typed notes would have been taken during the testing session to record any verbal feedback that the student tester wished to share with the researcher.
Academic staff participants would have been asked to complete a written reflection of a minimum one-page in length based on Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988; see also University of Edinburgh, 2019).

The following quantitative research method were planned:

The bandwidth used by the telepresence robot during the testing sessions would have been monitored by the university's network services team.

Addendum

about parents’ privacy concerns related to use of an AV1 robot in a classroom setting.

we used to create the video. ↩︎
The member of the eLearning team who does not have an existing service-based relationship with students. ↩︎
quite a rural and hilly area]. ↩︎
. ↩︎