Tool Affordance of Video Production Tasks: Pre-Recorded vs. Live Stream by Dr. Wen-Chun Gina Chen

1. Tool Affordance of Video Production Tasks:
Pre-Recorded vs. Live Stream
Wen-Chun Gina Chen, Ph.D.
National Chung-Cheng University, Taiwan
EUROCALL 2018, 22-25 AUG 2018, JYVÄSKYLÄ

2. Affordances
An affordance (van Lier, 2000): “A particular property” (p. 252)
A property that
affords further action learners can potentially perform in their
environment by using a particular tool—the working definition by
Bower (2008).

3. Exploring Affordances in Film Projects for SLA
Video Projects
1. Pre-recorded
2. Live streamContent Creation
Media/Technology
Communication Task Management
Teamwork
Socio/Cultural Awareness

5. Worldwide Growth of Online Videos
Facts: compared to 2016
Ardent mobile viewers:
99% younger users & 75% Baby Boomers
Mobile video growth  60%
Online content growth 194%

6. 50%
Viewers Demand > Makers Supply

7. Online Videos in L2 Classroom
Tutorial Videos
Khan Academy
How–to videos
Discussion Starters
Khine & Lourdusamy,
2003
Watkins & Wilkins, 2011
Writing Prompts
Maggs, 2005
Instructional Video
Recording
Baker, 2000
Bergmann & Sams, 2012
Tucker, 2012
Flipped
Classroom

8. Classroom Dynamics
RE-SHAPED (PERTINENT STUDIES)
1. Less Control
2. Less Focus-on Form
3. Less Teacher-centeredness
4. More Creativity
5. More Complications
6. More Participation
7. More Autonomy
8. More Possibility
9 Communicative LL
FORTIFIED (PILOT STUDY 2017)
1. T&S worked side-by-side
2. Outside resources (experts & tools)
3. Detailed proposal (action plans)
4. Contingency planning (trouble-shooting)
5. Collaboration & partnership
6. Outside viewers & real communication
7. Self-marketing

9. Video Projects in L2 Classrooms
1. Language Learners role shift: information
receivers, passive viewers  Active Content
Providers
2. Authorship expands: teacher’s tutorials (one-way
knowledge delivery ) Students’ Production
3. Authority shared  Mutual Learning
Participatory
Classroom

10. Dual Modes
Pre-recorded vs. Live Streaming

11. 6 Affordance Categories
A. Bower’s (2008) framework for e-learning tools
B. Meyer and Forester’s (2015) framework for student-produced video in language courses
Communication affordances:
communication strategies, target language output
discourse choice, elicit interaction, offer feedback, and
the awareness of intended audience & viewers.
Task Management:
project outlook, anxiety/pressure management, urge
for improvement, personal satisfaction, outside of the
comfort zone
Media/Technology affordances:
input and output forms, combine multiple tech tools,
freeware/shareware/applications for respective
functions, administer video broadcast, & facilitate
dissemination
Social /Cultural affordances:
connection with the outside community, views from
the outside peers, personal voice on critical issues,
exploration of new/hidden facts
Content creation affordances:
highlight key resource/information, show creativity,
direct/hold viewers attention, informative and
authentic content, (un)package, information, prep
scripts.
Teamwork affordances:
collaboration enjoyment, peer assistance, peer
appreciation, work distribution, individual
responsibility, problem-solving

12. Participants
Students from 4 courses (N=56, 13 repeated), 2
semesters, and 2 colleges in N. & S. of Taiwan.
Mostly foreign language majors
All higher-intermediate level English learners
Mandarin=L1 speakers

13. INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGN

14. Data Collection and Analysis
1. Self-intro live stream
(group homogeneity)
2. Action plans (proposals)
3. Work products (online
videos)
4. Comments on Facebook
(during/after broadcasts)
5. Exit Survey
Kruskal-Wallis test (small-sample): word
count, pauses, repetition comparisons
Frequency Counts
Thematic Analysis
Mixed Method

15. Group Homogeneity Check: Self-intro Live Stream
Kruskal-Wallistest(small-sample):wordcount,pauses,repetitioncomparisonsin1-minspeechsamples
P>.o5 , no significant differences between 1st & 2nd semester and among 4 groups

16. Project Theme: Re-discover Daily Routines
SOCIO-
CULTURAL
• Dining Alone
• Tinderness (online dating app)
• What Would You Do
• The Sanitation of Restaurants around CCU
• Indigenous Culture (Ami and Bunun)
• Dadaocheng (the beginning of the prosperity)
• Shengping Theater (a gold-mining site)
• Breakfast in Different Countries
• History of Comics
• Taiwan, Taipei MRT Culture
PSYCHOLOGICAL: • Looking into Your Eyes
• Alec (man’s appearance and his luck)
ENVIRONMENTAL: • Lily, the Dog in CCU
• Taipei Night Market
• Convenient Stores in Taiwan
• Affordable Delicacies at Taiepi Gongguan MRT Station

17. 1. Communication Affordances:
PRE-RECORDED
Survey: Most improved
#1 Adjust speech & information complexity for viewers
(82%)
#2 Use of communication strategies (78%)
#3 English fluency/accuracy (68%)
#4 Proper use of language (61%)
#5 Socio-cultural knowledge (54%)
#5 Feeling English is also my language (54%)
LIVE STERAM
#1 Proper use of language (75%) 
#2 Adjust speech & information complexity for viewers
(64%) 
#2 Socio-cultural knowledge (64%) 
#3 Communication strategies (75%) 
#4 English fluency/accuracy (43%) 
#4 Feeling English is also my language (43%) 
Expectation met? Y (71%) N (25%) Half (3%)
• Developed the ability to differentiate good and
bad scripts/lines
• Rich vocabulary under various themes
Expectation met? Y (32%)  N (50%)  Half (18%) 
• Nervous
• Steered away from the original script
• Concern about the audience reaction/comprehension
• Short thinking time (keep translating)
• Spontaneous speech
• Engaged in international communication

18. 1. Communication Affordances:
Awareness of the Audience
Survey responses & video products
The awareness of the audience was stronger in live stream than pre-recorded
PRE-RECORDED
 Viewer friendly
Convincing
Applicable/meaningful to the target
audience
Fun/interesting
Spoken discourse (colloquial expressions)
Numbers of total viewers’ comments:
78 12
LIVE STERAM
Viewer’s comments/questions
Prompt replies
Appreciate the audience
Positive feedback
Elicit interaction
Please the audience
Happy ambience
Numbers of total viewers’ comments:
92 288  431%

19. Clips for Illustration: Dual-modes

20. 2. Media-technology Affordances:
PRE-RECORDED
Survey: Most improved
#1 Recording/Editing techniques (82%)
#2 Tech tools applications (71%)
#2 Selection & combination of various media
(71%)
# 3 Effective online broadcasting (57%)
LIVE STERAM
#1 Effective online broadcasting (71%) 
#2 Selection & combination of various media (50%) 
#2 Tech tools applications (50%) 
#3 Trouble-shoot tech problems (46%) 
Expectation met? Y (71%) N (25%) Half (3%)
• Post-production is challenging and time-
consuming
• Many new gadgets/apps/software to learn and
to try
• Package, filter, and re-organize rich materials
according to the plan
• Visually appealing
Expectation met? Y (32%)  N (50%)  Half (18%) 
• Unstable Internet connection
• Incorporate multiple visual props
• Film (image) quality

21. 3. Content Creation Affordances:
PRE-RECORDED
Survey: Most improved
#1 Highlight & support the topic (79%)
#1 Creativity (79%)
#2 Intrigue the audience and hold their
attention (71%)
#3 Package and unpackage info (50%)
LIVE STERAM
#1 Highlight & support the topic (57%) 
#2 Creativity (50%) 
#2 Package and unpackage info (50%) 
#3 Intrigue the audience and hold their attention
(46%) 
Expectation met? Y (71%) N (25%) Half (3%)
• Constant revisions on scripts (multiple shooting)
• Courage to verify common beliefs with fresh
eyes
• Research social awareness and college students’
value system
• Voice/Verify personal thoughts
• Terminology and detailed info
Expectation met? Y (32%)  N (50%)  Half (18%) 
• Incomplete plan execution
• Inappropriate/difficult topics (scope & direction)
• Urge to research and prepare more on the topic
• Invite passersby to participate (interview & code-
switch)
• Deep learning on the topic
• The unimaginable amount of language preparation

22. 4. Teamwork Affordances:
PRE-RECORDED
Survey: Most improved
#1 Problem-solving (96%)
#2 Decision-making (93%)
#3 Appreciate individual talents & contribution (86%)
#3 Mutual assistance (86%)
#4 Team synergy (82%)
#4 Negotiation work distribution (82%)
#5 Reinforce individual responsibility (75%)
LIVE STERAM
#1 Mutual assistance (79%) 
#2 Negotiation work distribution (71%) 
#2 Problem-solving (71 %) 
#3 Decision-making (64%) 
#4 Appreciate individual talents & contribution (61%) 
#5 Team synergy (57%) 
Expectation met? Y (71%) N (25%) Half (3%)
• Showing gratitude to team members
• Acknowledging specific members
• Re-examining goal/scope appropriateness
• Design of props
• Group efforts to write scripts & translation
Expectation met? Y (32%)  N (50%)  Half (18%) 
• The design of interaction elicitation
• Acknowledging specific members
• Appreciating the efforts behind the scene: props,
scripts, guest invitation, site scouting

23. 5. Task Management Affordances:
PRE-RECORDED
Survey: Most improved
#1 Desire to improve (86%)
#2 Enjoy the process and product (79%)
#3 Personal satisfaction(61%)
#4 Step outside of the comfort zone (57%)
#4 Medium to share thoughts (57%)
#5 Desire to try more in the future (50%)
LIVE STERAM
#1 Desire to improve (75%) 
#2 Step outside of the comfort zone (71%) 
#3 Enjoy the process and product (68 %) 
#4 Anxiety management (57%) 
#5 More thorough preparation (50%) 
Expectation met? Y (71%) N (25%) Half (3%)
• Low control of the surroundings/weather
• Outside participants (guests) cooperation
• Timeline/schedule delayed
• Learn from problems
• Outside resources
Expectation met? Y (32%)  N (50%)  Half (18%) 
• Poor control of the surroundings/weather
• Unexpected “situations” & backup plans
• The uneasiness facing the camera
• Outside participants
• Time management (airtime)
• Spontaneity (nice surprises)

24. 6. Socio-cultural Affordances:
PRE-RECORDED
Survey: Most improved
#1 Reflect on SELF vs. the OTHERS (75%)
#1 Feel curious about the UNFAMILIAR (75%)
#2 Desire to understand new issues (64%)
LIVE STERAM
#1 Acknowledge various cultural interests (79%) 
#1 Develop cultural knowledge (79%) 
#2 Feel curious about the unfamiliar (75 %) 
#3 Desire to understand new issues (70%) 
#4 Appreciate all kinds of subcultures & communities (68%) 
#5 Compare how others think, live, view their communities (54%)
Expectation met? Y (71%) N (25%) Half (3%)
• Seek common interests
• Intrigued by new perspectives
• Resonate with “strangers”: “Touch the heart…”
• Reality show
• Daring approach
Expectation met? Y (32%)  N (50%)  Half (18%) 
• Presenting the meaning and meaningfulness
• The role of knowledge authority
• Virtual tours
• The excitement of group outing and interaction with the locals
• Efforts to delve into foreign customs
• Raise awareness of underexplored/neglected places/cultures

25. Discussion (I): Commonality
Both modes of video production tasks indeed create pedagogical values in
6 dimensions:
Media-
Tech
Communic
ation
Content
Creation
Team
Work
Socio-
cultural
Awarene
ss
Task
Managem
ent
Language skills, technological proficiency, strategy
use, task preparation and execution, team building,
cultural awareness, knowledge exchange,
awareness of the audience, idea organization,
opinion sharing, cultural exploration, visual-audio
presentation, respect/appreciation for differences
(otherness)—many have been researched and
proposed in pertinent literature.

26. Media-
Tech
Communic
ation
Content
Creation
Team Work
Socio-
cultural
Awarenes
s
Task
Manageme
nt
Discussion (II):
Differences in Communication
Live stream:
1. lower fluency and accuracy
2. lower linguistic ownership
3. higher anxiety
4. more concerns about the audience
5. less script base
6. more awareness of audience
Factors:
1. spontaneous speech
2. shorter thinking time and reaction time
3. higher cognitive load
4. real-time broadcast

27. Media-
Tech
Communic
ation
Content
Creation
Team Work
Socio-
cultural
Awarene
ss
Task
Managem
ent
Discussion (III):
Differences in Media & Teach
Pre-recorded:
1. Excitement of trying out various media combination.
2. Quick development of post production techniques.
3. Inclusion of new gadgets/software/apps
4. Crafting info and visual appeals for PERFECTION.
Factors:
1. Production  Cosmetics
2. Film editing  Illusional fluency & accuracy
3. Error-disguised
4. Misalignment between L2 objectives and actual learning
performance?

28. Media-
Tech
Communica
tion
Content
Creation
Team Work
Socio-
cultural
Awareness
Task
Managemen
t
Discussion (IV):
Differences in Content Creation
Live stream:
1. Similar affordances but all reduce.
2. Perfection is no longer the goal.
3. More sense of frustration.
4. More improvising and outside participation.
5. Unsatisfying plan execution: SHOULD’VE, COULD’VE. WOULD’VE
Factors:
1. Most efforts and attention are invested on spontaneous speech.
2. Deep learning for more detailed understanding (better prep on
language, translation, and rehearsals).
3. Outside participation  code switch & interpretation
4. Selection of proper topic/scope.
5. Considering target audience’s likings

29. Media-
Tech
Communica
tion
Content
Creation
Team Work
Socio-
cultural
Awarenes
s
Task
Manageme
nt
Discussion (V):
Differences in Teamwork
Pre-recorded:
1. Better team synergy.
2. More peer assistance
3. More choices of props
4. More individual talents/roles appreciated
Factors:
1. More teamwork than individual work
2. More time to discuss during the production
3. Even workload, less focus on fluent members

30. Media-
Tech
Communic
ation
Content
Creation
Team Work
Socio-
cultural
Awarenes
s
Task
Manageme
nt
Discussion (VI):
Differences in Task Management
Pre-recorded:
1. Fewer chaos
2. More personal satisfaction
3. Higher desire to do more in the future
4. Lower anxiety when facing camera
5. No need to pay attention to TIME LIMIT
Factors:
1. More control
2. Fewer “surprises”
3. Try out different approaches
4. No need for backup plans
5. Self-regulated learning

31. Media-
Tech
Communica
tion
Content
Creation
Team Work
Socio-
cultural
Awareness
Task
Manageme
nt
Discussion (VII):
Differences in Socio-Cultural Awareness
Live stream:
1. Real-time broadcast and 360 moving views
2. Seeing and listening to live reports and real actions
3. Compelled to watch/know more
4. Almost “VR” inside unfamiliar communities/subcultures
Factors:
1. Raw materials
2. Efforts beyond the surface
3. Appreciation of the courage to challenge
4. Group outing for a meaningful challenge

32. Conclusion
Two different modes induce different affordances for L2 learning. The alignment between the
objectives, video task design and the tools is intricate. It should not a convenient choice. When
students look at their work, their self-evaluation should be honest and reflective.

33. Project funded by Ministry of Technology in Taiwan (MOST 106-2410-H-194-058)
&
National Chung-Cheng University
Thank you for listening