The Value of a Virtual Participant
Have you ever been a virtual participant and not been acknowledged? Or, have you been a virtual participant only to log in and not have a way of connecting with your peers? Or, have you been a virtual participant and wanted to engage, but did not have the confidence, or felt the face-to-face contingent was more valued? Our educational landscape has changed and so must our teaching practices regardless of whether it is for educational or professional purposes. We have shifted from face-to-face, online, hybrid, and hyflex. No longer is it enough to have participants watch a presentation, or watch a lecture, and then engage within the LMS; it is about participation, active engagement, and providing opportunities for multiple interactions.
Last week I attended the #ASCILITE23 conference as a virtual participant. One of the things I love about ASCILITE is the ability to network and engage with professionals across Universities all over Australia. Since I wasn't able to attend face-to-face, I committed to fully engage with the provided platform. In the lead-up to the conference I was asked about virtual participation, and whether I would get something out of it; so I reflected on what is the value of a virtual participant.
What did I find?
The conference platform was intuitive
A simple email with login details and from there, the platform was intuitive, I was easily able to go to presentations I wanted to watch, ask questions, post a discussion prompt, or post on a discussion wall.
I liked that we were able to interact, but I found it very one-directional
Whilst the platform was seamless, it did raise questions about social interaction and participation in the virtual spaces. I tried to engage via the social wall and whilst some posts were 'liked' they weren't a conversation per, se but rather a post on a wall. So, whilst you could view other posts, the interaction often felt 'one-sided.'
Meaningful connections need to be fostered
As I mentioned earlier, one of the key things I love about ASCILITE is connecting with peers across different Universities and having 'hallway conversations'. Whilst there was the ability to connect within the platform, this meant the connection was time-based and limited to the access at the conference. I switched, and connected through LinkedIn, sent a message and people were responsive - so I have ongoing connections now. I then wondered about the gap in virtual platforms and the need for networking tools that foster ongoing relationships rather than a point in time.
Access to the different presentations was seamless
The speakers were insightful and shared their practice; it was great to be able to move from 'room to room' seamlessly. I can only recall a couple of presentations that I attended that brought the virtual participants into the room. The lack of acknowledgement felt as though we weren't 'part' of the room but rather a passive participant. There was one presentation that I felt part of and that was because they looked to the camera addressed the virtual participants, and invited our insights, comments and questions in the virtual space. The way this was done throughout the presentation gave me pause for thought - the notion of hyflex.
Virtual participants had an opportunity to engage with keynotes
There were times when the virtual participants were given 'special access' to the keynote speakers and had a 'conversation' with them. This experience was insightful and a great opportunity to feel connected to the conference. What was striking, however, of all the participants in one of the keynote meet and greet sessions, only three participants (including the keynote) had their cameras on. This made me think about the advice we give students, if there is no avatar or no video on, there is a lack of engagement, or is there? In this context, whilst there are myriad of reasons why you might have your camera off, I wondered whether this diminishes the ability to participate or reflects a deeper issue of discomfort in virtual spaces.
Is imposter syndrome real?
The experience as a whole, regardless of the room I was in found the same participants on the Q&A wall, discussion wall or posting on the social wall. Then, I wondered, was it that some participants didn't want to connect or was there the fear of imposter syndrome? That is when you doubt your abilities and feel doubt regardless of your competence. It made me wonder, is it exacerbated in the virtual space because it may be more scrutinised and if we aren't actively engaging in it in a professional context, is it unreasonable to expect students to engage in the educational context?
As I reflect on my experience, it made me question what the value of a virtual participant is; is it of greater or lesser value than a face-to-face participant; and how does this inform our beliefs about education? The value of ASCILITE as a virtual participant was not only in the presentations and information sharing but also in the human connection and the sense of community it builds. I had set the intention at the beginning of the conference that I was going to be present, engage with the presentations, and make connections. I was only able to do this through the support of my team and I put my out-of-office on as though I was physically at the conference. It highlighted to me that perhaps the value of virtual participants isn’t as high as those face-to-face, and the challenge lies in designing an experience that bridges the gap between technology and connection, participation and engagement.
