Video conferencing us talking face-to-face: is video suitable for supportive dialogue?

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to explore the differences between conversations carried out face-to-face and those via video link, to see if the latter was suitable for supporting health care students. The study's objectives were: to determine perceived differences between supportive conversations conducted via video link and those carried out face-to-face; and to explore potential causes of any perceived differences between the two methods of conversation. Methods: The study used a mix of methods including dialogue simulation, transcript annotation, a questionnaire and focus group. Nine Participants' perceptions of differences between the two media and causative factors were explored. Findings: Participants expressed concerns over the use of video communication for emotionally-based dialogue because they perceived problems with eye contact, interpretation of non-verbal communication cues and limitations related to the two-dimensional nature of video conferencing. Conclusions: Reduced perceptions of shared space (a phenomenon that is present in face-to-face dialogue) with two-dimensional communication may explain participant discomfort with video communications. New three-dimensional technologies may overcome this. The findings suggest there are implications for using video conferencing in health care delivery. Careful consideration is needed before non-direct support/contact methods are introduced in both education and health care in general.

Does the use of a university lecturer as a visiting tutor support learning and assessment during physiotherapy students’ clinical placements? A survey of higher education institution providers

“…Support for learning and assessment was also stressed, but contrasting information relating to the face-to-face visit activities undertaken (Table 1) suggested that different approaches could be used effectively. It is proposed that good pre-placement preparation for both students and educators allowed HEIs to reduce their input into problem solving and assessment during the face-to-face visit (Table 2), which, it could be argued, adds to the HEI debate relating to the value for money of current visiting practice [6] and [7].…”

“…As a good proportion of HEIs were happy to entrust the clinical educator with developing student problem solving and evaluating their achievement in relation to clinical assessment, there could be scope to support a move to more cost-effective alternative technological approaches such as video conferencing [6] and [8]. In this scenario, a lecturer or personal tutor visit to the placement would only be indicated should emotive issues become apparent, to provide appropriate pastoral support, or in the case of the student at risk of poor achievement or failure of placement objectives.…”

“…Although videoconferencing dialogue is reported to be less able to support emotionally-based communications [6], using the student's personal tutor to communicate via telephone with the clinical educator was reported to be as effective as using the LVT. It could be argued that both approaches would allow the opportunity for two-way communication relating to curriculum issues and discussion pertaining to the student's performance.…”

“…Higher education institutions (HEI) are required, in partnership with their placement providers, to support learning in practice [4] and [5]. One such support mechanism is the common use of university lecturers as visiting tutors (LVT) during student placements [6].…”

“…However, the amount of staff time and travel costs, due to widespread geographical placement locations, has created an ongoing debate relating to the value for money of such practice [ ] a d [ ]. Su h e o o i p essu e has led to edu ed f e ue of fa e-to-fa e isits ith consideration of alternative technological approaches such as video conferencing [6] and [8], although these non-direct approaches are less able to support emotionally-based communications [6].…”