Netviewer meet participant observer

netviewer meet participant observer

We like Adobe Acrobat ConnectNow, which supports observation, chat, and webcam sharing. Call your participant and have them share their screen with you, you don't have to use the long one that every online meeting generates. .. What is good about Netviewer is that it is easy to install for the user. The data sources that use Tivoli NetView for OS/ are the following: This restriction exists because the data source registers as an SA Status Observer. This documentation describes specific steps to customize the JCL to meet site If your DB2 configuration includes multiple DB2 subsystems participating in data . it can forward one media flow of the participant and the meeting of written material resulting from talk and observation (Malterud, ).

However, the method lacks any richer data such as the video and audio data. The method allows a large number of participants to be used and so is well suited to both quantitative and qualitative designs. However, the returning of the data is dependent on the participant and if the participant is not conscientious in returning the data there maybe missing data sets.

This might be problematic for experimental designs. Nevertheless, unlike in the user-lab or on-site observation methods in which observation time is constrained, the data logging remote observation method lends itself to longitudinal data collection. Web-Conferencing Remote Observation Web-conferencing remote observation tries to combine most of the positives of the previous methods discussed.

As it is a type of remote observation, it is particularly suited for participants working in their natural environments.

“Netview”–s Qualitative Method In Networking Interviews | Sisse Jensen - az-links.info

In web-conferencing remote observation, participants interacting with software are observed via the internet by employing webcams and application-sharing facilities which are usually bundled into web-conferencing software.

The web-conferencing remote observation process lends itself to both a qualitative and quantitative data collection. Firstly, this method can collect both video and voice data and provide a richer analysis than the data-logging remote observation. Secondly, much higher numbers of students are possible compared with the on-site and user-lab observation.

Moreover, quasi-experimental designs can be employed using pre and post-tests which may be constructed on the web. Participants can enter the answers online and these can be sent directly to the researcher. This helps in getting an electronic copy of the data which reduces the need for transcribing or inputting. However, any additional workings that participants may do, such as scribble or sketch on pieces of paper may be lost unless the researcher asks the participants to use sketching software which they can application share as well.

This remote observation procedure is particularly suited to the new type of students that is distance and e-learners as makes it difficult to invite them to a user-lab. The participants have the comfort of using their own equipment without creating any anxiety in operating new equipment. This may be a disadvantage if the study calls for the participant to only use materials provided for them.

Also, as the participants are in their own environment there is no overwhelming issue of power relations balance Hammersley and Atkinson,that is the research environment is not completely controlled by the researcher as it would be in an user-lab situation. Further, this remote observation method allows researchers, with minimal extra cost, to extend their population or sample group to participants in different parts of the country or in different parts of the world.

However, there may still be limitations to this as some countries particularly less developing countries may not have the required broadband speed. Also, participants who are disabled or have mobility issues may be more willing to take part in these types of studies as they can use their own machines configured for their own particular needs, and hence the researcher can have access to a wider sample population of this type. There are fewer problems with logistics since the researchers can use their own personal computer and also the only arrangement is that for a virtual meeting time with the participant.

This means that a larger participant sample can be used but perhaps not to the same extent as that of the data-logging remote observation. Further, the researcher effect is also minimized. The researcher has also has some freedom in being to react such as facial expression to what the participants are saying without adversely affecting what the participant is doing, as participants are not likely to see them through the webcam.

Further, the researchers can talk or make notes without making the participant anxious about what is being written about them, as they are unlikely to see the actions of the researcher. Practical Setup In web-conferencing remote observation, there are basic requirements for the researcher and the student for the study to be conducted. These requirements are presented in Table 1. Further, since the video is streamed through a webcam, the webcam can be recorded using screen capture software to create a video.

Also, the voice-conversation can be recorded through an audio- recording device.

netviewer meet participant observer

However, it is possible to record a mouse trail, that is follow where the mouse is moving from or to. The remote-observation method assumes that the researcher and the participant will be using their own computers and would have administrative privileges on their computer. This is necessary as software for the applications has to be loaded. Additionally participants should be given the right to ask any questions about the nature of the study and the methods will be used, and given the option to withdraw at any time they wish to.

Participants can be offered an option to show their images and voice either altered or unaltered for purposes e.

TEST 2 - set 1 Flashcards by Elise Tallent | Brainscape

This entails video and audio data of participants who consented can be used for presentations whilst data collected from others can still be presented in textual forms. Some researchers may place video data over the internet to allow other researchers to access and view. If data are made available to others, these data should be accompanied with further ethical conditions on which users should agree before access to videos can be obtained. Proof of Concept Studies 5.

As Windows Messenger was used, three Windows Messenger identities were created. In this study, think-aloud protocol Ericsson and Simon, was also used together with a quasi-experimental design requiring pre and post-tests Campbell and Stanley, The pre-test was sent as web-forms from which data collected was already in a digital format. The post-test was created as a Visual Basic form which was attached to the application, although this could have been a web-form as well.

OpenLearn is a project where e-learning courses are available online for free and students use these for informal learning. This study observed the students through the webcam as well as employed the think-aloud protocol. A comparison of Netviewer and Windows Messenger for remote observation is presented in Table 2. This means that overlapping conversatons between the researcher and the participant is allowed.

As Netviewer only allows one person to talk at a time, some type of protocol has to be set up to decide when or who wants to talk. This may be contradictory to how the think-aloud protocol works as the participants have to make a conscious effort to make sure the talk button is on before they can voice their thoughts.

However, Netviewer has the advantage of being an integrated package, which means there is less of an issue in trying to synchronize the videos of the software application and the webcam as they are all hosted within Netviewer. Therefore, signed consent forms were not considered a viable option unless these forms were sent via to the participants through email and then asked for them to sign and mail or faxed these back.

The practicality of using participants possibly in different countries would make mailing a time-consuming procedure and also a cost-burden on the participant. The cost-burden on the participant would also feature in the faxing method.

Further, considering that the participants would be students, access to a fax machine would, for the most part, not be convenient. As such, the solution was that participants could be emailed a link to a web-form where they could input their names, their email addresses and click submit to indicate that they have given consent. When they have clicked agreed, an email message could be sent to them to indicate what terms of the consent they have agreed to. The webcam video data was not of the highest quality, that is, it is not similar in quality to a video recorder as the picture had a lower resolution and appeared grainier.

Also, depending on the internet connection there was skipping in the video. However, as this data was only being used to get a sense of the environment and what the participant was doing Jordan and Henderson,the webcam data was considered sufficient.

One added problem was that unlike traditional video data recording, this method was dependent on the participant fixing the webcam and this meant there was variability in what the researcher could see.

With screen capture software, the quality of the video data of the participants interacting with the software was good. There were also recorded sudden jumps when using the mouse and words quickly appearing a few milliseconds after they are typed. The audio quality was good as that of Voice Over IP VOIPalthough again it depended on the internet connection as sometimes skipping occurred or echoing of words.

The reason for this is to be found in the following two related phenomena: The differences between the oral and the written styles are reflected among other things in the distinction between the questionnaire and the interview. The questionnaire is used to collect quantitative data and short comments on a subject in question, and the research interview is a way of gaining insight into the interpretations and viewpoints of respondents and their reflections.

In the process of an interview the researcher and the respondent create a common context along with the continuous negotiations of meaning and interpretation. The cues in metacommunication such as tone of voice, intonation, gesture and facial expression are essential in the process of shaping these interpretations. The negotiation of communication in an interview is a double-layered process of transaction. In one layer the negotiated content and the related context are produced while the second layer is concerned with the interpretation of the way in which content and context are negotiated [Kvale ].

The interview is visualized in [Fig. The interview is a face-to-face view in synchronous communication. The research interview is a mutual view of the interviewer and the respondent.

TEST 2 - set 1 Flashcards Preview

In the tradi- tional interview-situation the respondent and the interviewer create a common context through the negotiation of content and in the interpretation of the context — the communi- cation layer L1 — as well as simultaneously negotiated interpretations of the interview- situation as such — the metacommunication layer L2.

The networking research interview is influenced by some of the procedures and qualities from the style of writing and the decontextualised features commonly associated with the questionnaire. The content and the contexts of the interview are created in the process of the inter- view whereas the questionnaire is filled in according to the predefined and standardized categories and the foreseen way of working with the results.

It seems that the dynamics of the interview in networking environments is quite different from both the questionnaire and the traditional interview. It is open and unfolds itself during the process of negotiation of meaning very much as it is the case in an interview, although the events of communication take place in writing, which relies on asynchronous communication.

In the networking interview there is also a double-layered process, but it is different from the tradi- tional interview. As earlier mentioned the networking interview is characterized by the related interaction with the interface face-to-interface and the events of communication between human actors, be it teachers, writers or students.

Participant Observation Part 1

In software design, i. In the construction of contextual situations and in the negotiation of meaning we have to deal with both the in- terviewer, the respondent, the designer and with the separate interview situations and their different but related contexts.

Some of these characteristics are visualized in [fig. The networking interview is a face-to-interface view in asynchronous communication. In the networking interview-situation the respondent and the interviewer negotiate and interpret the content from within different situations - the commu- nication layer L1 - as well as simultaneously from within different contexts - the interaction layer or the face-to-interface layer L2.

The Problems of Version in Networking Interviews When confronted with these differences the complexity of networking interviews became obvious and the need for new methods to deal with this complexity was realized. Focus was on re- lated transactions of face-to-interface interaction and the events of communication between human actors in the networking environments. The idea was to get as close as possible to face-to-interface interaction and the method applied was the Video Interaction Analysis VIA which is based on the use of video observation as an analytical tool [Jordan ].

The respondent had the opportunity to reflect on, edit and revise the responses in a way that is unknown in the traditional interview.

The subject-lines were used as a key-feature in structuring the networking interview sessions. In the printed version of the interviews the overall style was categorized as either primarily oral or written based upon parameters such as length of comments and frequency and intervals.

But even though the styles very often bore resemblance to the events of oral communication, it was not possible to prove the responses to be first versions such as it is the case in a conversation and in an interview. The concern about problems of version in the interview dialogues was confirmed when the transac- tional processes were video analyzed [Jensen ].

During the video analysis it gradually became evident that reactions in the computer-mediated dialogues were heavily reviewed, edited, evaluated and very often shortened or otherwise changed before they were submitted. In other words, it proved to be a quite different context of dia- logue and situation in the networking interview. They were carried out in the early years of the global spinning of the web and not within hypermedia environments such as web-sites.

netviewer meet participant observer

But in the meantime the relevance of qualitative research methods of networking interviews has increased as the web has made networking cultures and their capacities visible for everyone.

Networking cultures are coded with contexts created by the significant use of signs and sym- bols. They live by the actions and events of communication by human actors who are relying on a new set of values, conventions and rituals.

The instrumental view on networking capacities as just a new technological infrastructure will leave us with no comprehension as to the new phenomena and the possibilities in relation to education and learning. To unfold their potentials and perspectives we need to understand the codes and contexts of these new cultures. In networking cultures as in any other culture we can learn a lot from asking and listening to the human actors and the way they inter- pret their own actions. The interview is one of the very important ways in which to gain this insight.

The concepts of netviews and of reflection-in-interaction are visualized in [fig. The netview is a multiplicity of face-to-interface views of the interviewer, the respondents and the designer. In netviews the design of face-to-interface interaction is in a hypermedia environment such as the web and it is designed to catalyze the focus of reflections in and on the interview situations. Hyperstructures and link facilities are important tools in the creation of interactive written dialogues and in the construction of a common context.

Netviews are based on the asynchronous nature of networking, independent of time and place, and on the capacity of storing interaction and communi- cation.

The method prospers from the asynchronous communication as it opens up the possibilities of a process analytical approach [Borgnakke ] to interview situations.