Affordable Access

Desktop Video Conferencing

Publication Date
  • Lc1022 - 1022.25 Computer-Assisted Education
  • T Technology (General)
  • Communication
  • Design


first layout.qxp Desktop Video Conferencing Ray Potter and Deborah Roberts, Senior Lecturers, St. Martin’s College, Lancaster Part of the ESCalate Help Directory for Teacher Educators | Busy Teacher Educator Guides Introduction: What is Desktop Video Conferencing? This guide aims to provide an introduction to Desktop Video Conferencing. You may be familiar with video conferencing, where participants typically book a designated conference room and communicate with another group in a similar room on another site via a large screen display. Desktop video conferencing (DVC), as the name suggests, allows users to video conference from the comfort of their own office, workplace or home via a desktop/laptop Personal Computer. DVC provides live audio and visual communication in real time from a standard PC and allows one to one and multiple user conferences by participants in different physical locations. Some software features a ‘whiteboard’ on the computer screen for information exchange and the option to show or share documents and websites between the participants. What are the benefits of Desktop Video Conferencing to students and teacher educators? E-learning, facilitated by the rapid growth in personal computer ownership and internet access is sometimes cited as a panacea for many of the challenges facing Higher Education. DVC as a particular example of e- technology has much to offer to students and teacher educators. The ensuing bullet-pointed statements summarise some benefits of DVC, whilst text following expands the statement. � DVC is synchronous, that is, participants meet in ‘real time’, offering greater immediacy and interactivity; when compared with other asynchronous e-learning tools such as websites, e- mail and virtual learning environments. Whilst such asynchronous technologies do enhance the opportunities for communication, it can be argued that such communication is qualitatively poor. Russell (2005:3) for example, contends that in low-bandwidth communications

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.