logo

Articles

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022): Visual literacies and visual technologies for teaching, learning and inclusion

Videoconferences in higher education: The good frame

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.56c9bc54
Submitted
8 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

The Coronavirus lockdown in 2020 pushed videoconference technology as a common means of synchronous communication for emergency remote teaching in Higher Education. In a short period of time, educators and students had to use cameras and stream their images over the Internet to keep on with academic interaction from home. But not all stakeholders had the same experience using this type of communication means, and their values and perceptions on what was an appropriate framing style for educational purposes yielded different types of camera compositions, not all agreeable to watch. To study videoconferencing framing among University stakeholders, a two-tier intervention was conducted to inquire about the values and perceptions of educators, and to observe the actual production decisions they made before and during a videoconference for educational purposes. In this paper, the video references and framing preferences of 6031 teachers were analysed, and a set of categories were constructed and used to conduct observations of 1111 videoconference frames. The findings were used to understand the production decisions academic stakeholders took for the spontaneous production of their home-made real-time video for virtual classes.

References

  1. Aguilar, J., Ramirez A. & Lopez, R. (2014). Literacidad digital académica de los estudiantes universitarios: Un estudio de caso. REID. 11, 123-146. https://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/reid/article/view/1257
  2. Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Literacy practices. In Barton D., Hamilton, M. & Ivanic, R. (Eds.). Situated literacies. Reading and Writing in Context (pp. 7-15). Routledge.
  3. Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (2004). La literacidad entendida como práctica social. In V. Zavala, M. Niño-Murcia & P. Ames (Eds.), Escritura y sociedad. Nuevas perspectivas teóricas y etnográficas (pp. 109-139). Red para el desarrollo de las ciencias sociales en el Perú.
  4. Borromeo, C., Fernández, J., & Ramirez, A. (2018). La tecnología en la enseñanza de idiomas. Reencuentro. Análisis De Problemas Universitarios, 30(76), 133-154.
  5. Bouch, A.; Kuchinsky, A.; & Bhatti, N. (2000, April). Quality is in the eye of the beholder: Meeting users' requirements for internet quality of service. SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems.
  6. Brown, A. & Chmielewski, D. (2020, May 21st). Tras la caza del nuevo CEO de TikTok y lo que sigue para la aplicación del momento. https://www.forbes.com.mx/negocios-tras-la-caza-del-nuevo-ceo-de-tiktok-y-lo-que-sigue-para-la-aplicacion-del-momento-en-el-mundo/
  7. Canella, G. (2018). Video goes vertical: Local news videographers discuss the problems and potential of vertical video. Electronic News, 12(2), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243117705417
  8. Casillas, M., & Ramirez, A. (Coords.) (2015). Génesis de las TIC en la Universidad Veracruzana: Ensayo de periodización. Productora de Contenidos Culturales Sagahón Repoll.
  9. Casillas, M., & Ramirez, A. (2021). Saberes digitales en la educación: Una investigación sobre el capital tecnológico incorporado de los agentes de la educación. Editorial Brujas.
  10. Cassany, D. (2006). Tras las líneas. Sobre la lectura contemporánea. Anagrama.
  11. Cassany, D. (2011). En_Línea. Leer y escribir en la red. Anagrama.
  12. CEPAL, N. (2020). La educación en tiempos de la pandemia de COVID-19. CEPAL UNESCO. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/45904/S2000510_es.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  13. Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P., Ahn, Y., & Moon, S. (2007, October). I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: Analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system. 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement.
  14. Chambi-Mescco, E. (2020). La videoconferencia como recurso educativo en los tiempos del COVID-19. Investigación en educación médica, 9(36), 108-109. https://doi.org/10.22201/fm.20075057e.2020.36.20267
  15. Chen, K. T.; Huang, C. Y.; Huang, P.; & Lei, C. L. (2006). Quantifying skype user satisfaction. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 36(4), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151659.1159959
  16. Chen, C., Chu, C., Yeh, S., Chu, H., & Huang, P. (2012). Measuring the perceptual quality of Skype sources. ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Measurements up the stack. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2342541.2342543
  17. Crovi, D. (2009). Acceso, uso y apropiación de las TIC en comunidades académicas. Diagnóstico en la UNAM. UNAM/Plaza y Valdés.
  18. Dobrian, F., Awan, A., Dilip, A. J., Ganjam, A., Zhan, J., Sekar, V., Stoica, I., & Zhang, H. (2011). Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 41(4), 362-373.
  19. Dorantes, M. (2015). Desarrollo Integral del estudiante en el Telebachillerato. Secretaría de Educación de Veracruz. Dirección General de Telebachillerato de Veracruz. Mexico.
  20. Federal Communications Commission (1968). Educational Television. Inf. Bulletin No. 16-B. Washington. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED063786.pdf
  21. Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x
  22. Ferres, J. (1994). Vídeo y educación. Papeles de pedagogía. Paidós.
  23. Finholt, T. A., Rocco, E., Bree, D., Jain, N., & Herbsleb, J. D. (1999). NotMeeting: A field trial of NetMeeting in a geographically distributed organization. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 20(1), 66-69.
  24. Garcia, F. J., Abella, V., Corell, A., & Grande, M. (2020). La evaluación online en la educación superior en tiempos de la COVID-19. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS) 21(26).
  25. Garcia, R. E., & Calderon, R., (2009). Sistema de educación multimodal en la Universidad Veracruzana. X Congreso Nacional de Investigación Educativa, Mexico.
  26. Gee, J. (1999). The New Literacy Studies and the “Social Turn”. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442118.pdf
  27. Gerber, V. & Pinochet, C. (2012). La era de la colaboración. Mapa abreviado de nuevas estrategias artísticas. In N. Garcia-Canclini, F. Cruces, F. & M. U. Castro (coords.). Jóvenes, Culturas Urbanas y Redes Digitales. Spain: Ariel, Colección Telefónica.
  28. Goodwin, D., Demetrius, A., & Uhrmacher, P. B. (2019). Responding and connecting: Visual literacy for today using the mid-20th-century ideas of artist and educator Kurt Rowland. Art Education, 72(3), 39–44. https://www.proxydgb.buap.mx:2168/10.1080/00043125.2019.1578021
  29. Hernández, D. (2014). La apropiación digital. Descripción y análisis de las TIC en las prácticas letradas de adultos profesionales mexicanos [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain].
  30. Hernández, D. (2016). Los aventurados en el espacio digital: Desde la máquina de escribir al correo electrónico. Ensayos Pedagógicos, 11, 113-119. http://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/ensayospedagogicos/article/view/9343/11194
  31. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review, 27, 1-12. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
  32. IISUE. (2020). Educación y pandemia. Una visión académica. Mexico: UNAM. https://www.iisue.unam.mx/investigacion/textos/educacion_pandemia.pdf
  33. Kalman, J. (1999). Writing on the Plaza: mediated literacy practices among scribes and clients in Mexico City. Hampton Press.
  34. Kemp, S. (2020). Digital 2020. Digital global Overview. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-global-digital-overview
  35. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. Routledge.
  36. Lankshear, C., Gee, P., Knobel, M., & Searle, C. (1997). Changing Literacies. Open University Press.
  37. Lestiyanawati, R. (2020). The strategies and problems faced by Indonesian teachers in conducting e-learning during COVID-19 outbreak. Culture, Literature, Linguistics, English Teaching, 2(1), 71-82. https://ojs.unsiq.ac.id/index.php/cllient/article/view/1271
  38. Manzoor, I. (2020). Zoom Revenue and Usage Statistics [Blog]. Business of apps. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/zoom-statistics/
  39. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
  40. O'Donoghue, M. (2014). Producing video for teaching and learning: Planning and collaboration. Routledge.
  41. Orhan, G., & Beyhan, Ö. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions and teaching experiences on distance education through synchronous video conferencing during Covid-19 pandemic. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 7(1), 8-44.
  42. Palmero, M., & Longares, L. (2002). La telesecundaria en México. Un ensayo sociopedagógico para la inclusión y la igualdad de oportunidades de las comunidades rurales. Revista de Ciencias de la Educación, 192, 407-417.
  43. Peters, G. (2007). Aesthetic Primitives of Images for Visualization. 11th International -Conference Information Visualization (IV '07), Zurich, Switzerland, 316-325.
  44. Ramirez, A. (2010). Educational Video. Exploring the complex relationship between production, educational use and audience. Verlag Dr. Mueller.
  45. Ramirez, A. & Casillas, M. A. (Coords.) (2017). Saberes digitales de los docentes de educación básica. Una propuesta para la discusión desde Veracruz. Secretaría de Educación de Veracruz.
  46. Ramirez, A., & Aguilar, J. L (2021). Producción casera y espontánea de videos en tiempo real: El caso de la Educación Superior. NOiMAGEN 4(3).
  47. Sartori, G. (1998). Homo Videns. La sociedad teledirigida. Taurus.
  48. Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981) The Psychology of Literacy. Harvard University Press.
  49. Swamy, N., Kuljaca, O., & Lewis, F.L. (2002). Internet-Based Educational Control Systems Lab Using NetMeeting. IEEE Transactions on Education. 45 (2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2002.1013879
  50. Yan, M. (2015). Constructing and reading visual information: Visual Literacy for Library and information science education. Journal of Visual Literacy, 34(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2015.11674727
  51. Yeh, H. H., Yang, C. Y., Lee, M. S., & Chen, C. S. (2013). Video aesthetic quality assessment by temporal integration of photo-and motion-based features. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 15(8), 1944-1957. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2013.2280250