Using Skype

The contact list (buddy list) shows the status of all of your contacts. It allows you to IM, video, or audio chat. The contact list also displays the money left in your Skype Out account.

Here's what a video chat looks like:

Other features:

1. You can share your computer screen with the other person so that they see what you see.
2. You can audio chat with multiple people at once.
3. You can use Skype to make "Skype Out" calls to landlines and cellphones.

Here's a list of prices for making a calls to various countries. The rates fluctuate between 2 cents a minute on 20 cents a minute depending on where you're calling and what type of phone you're calling.

http://www.skype.com/intl/en/prices/callrates/#listing-F

Welcome to Skype

Skype sign-in:


How is Skype used?
With Skype you can make video calls, instant message, and make calls from your PC to telephones around the world.

You can download it from http://skype.com/ for free.

Current versions:
Skype 4.1 for Windows
Skype 2.8 for Mac
Skype 2.1 (Beta) for Linux

Video Chat for Language Learning

Annotation #3

Eröz-Tuğa, B., & Sadler, R. (2009). Comparing six video chat tools: A critical evaluation by language teachers. Computers & Education, 53(3), 787-798.

Two foreign language professors, Eroz-Tuga at Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey and Sadler at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, report the findings of their study comparing six different video chat tools in the context of language learning. All six tools are open access and free to the public, although some offer improved "member" services for a fee. The authors' major finding is that MSN (Windows Live) and Skype were the two best-performing computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools that offer synchronous video and audio communication. MSN was ranked #1 and Skype was ranked #2 with Yahoo a distant third. ICQ, CUWorld, and Paltalk were also evaluated but found wanting both on the fronts of educational use and user-friendliness. The methodology of the study appears sound in general, although the sample size of evaluators is small including eight Turkish grad students and ten US grad students of whom seven were not native English speakers. Nevertheless, it is my understanding from reading usability testing "best practices" that for most websites and applications, about 80-90% of usability problems can be discovered with a sample-size of only five testers.

This article discusses the advantages of using Skype and MSN for language learning. Advantages include the language learner's ability to:

1. use visual cues to practice correct pronunciation
2. interact across distance with native speakers in an authentic learning context
3. exchange cultural information by "showing" their campus/home culture (rather than telling)
   
4. motivate a younger generation of students with the newest computer tool
   

The study evaluates the six CMCs for technical performance, usability, and relevance to language learning. The findings indicate that Skype and MSN are statistically equivalent, although MSN slightly outranked Skype. Skype was ranked #1 in the user-friendliness of its website and in online help/support. MSN was ranked #1 in ease of installation and setup, ease of adding new members, ease of starting a conversation, and whether it was "frustrating" or "confusing" to use. (Skype was a close second). As for quality of audio and video, Skype's video quality was found to be problematic but ranked much better than Yahoo, ICQ and the other CMCs. MSN in contrast was criticized for not offering conference calling with multiple users; only one-to-one conversations are possible. Skype, in contrast offers conference audio calls without video. Both MSN and Skype were recommended by the researchers over Yahoo, ICQ, CUWorld, Paltalk for academic purposes because they were not part of an online community that contained anonymous chatrooms. The students conducting the study discovered that chatrooms quickly became "X-rated" and did not lend themselves to language learning-- at least not in an academic sense.

In general, I found this study very useful. It's one of the few to evaluate video chat tools quantitatively. I take issue with a few aspects of the study. First, as the authors admit, their student testers were already familiar users of MSN, Skype, and Yahoo which may have biased their perception of and increased their frustration with the other three CMCs. Second, a few technical criticisms of Skype clash with my personal experience and research. Students using Skype complained that their contacts would disappear when they switched computers. I have used Skype on several computers and the contacts always "follow" me; all I have to do is log in. Finally, there is little talk of interoperability in the article. The students were all using PCs running Windows. One major concern with MSN Windows Live is that the video chat feature is not available to Mac OS users, or at least, not available without a corporate account and a fee. Skype does offer Mac and Linux compatibility. http://www.microsoft.com/Mac/products/messenger/default.mspx

Last but not least, I was surprised that the authors did not mention the advantages of synchronous instant messaging along side video chat for language learning. Not only can students benefit from hearing native speakers and copying their pronunciation, but if a word is mispronounced, students can always IM each other, clarifying in a few seconds what might take several minutes to explain in a voice-only call. They can also share links to online dictionaries, articles, etc. that might facilitate the language-learning process. Overall, this article is very cutting edge as it is one of the few to effectively use data to show both the efficacy of language-learning via video chat and the usability of Skype compared to other CMCs.

Video Reference at University of Nebraska at Omaha

Annotation #2

Hillyer, N., & Parker, L. L. (2006). Video reference--it's not your typical virtual reference: Video reference services for South Campus at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(4), 41-54.

This article describes a failed attempt to install a video reference kiosk on the University of Nebraska at Omaha's South Campus, an area of campus under-served by libraries. The article provides a quick literature review of some of the first research into video reference, revealing that ALA developed formal guidelines for virtual reference service in the late nineties. As the hardware and software improved, video virtual reference became possible. Hillyer lists potential advantages of video reference including "point of need" service, visual and verbal cues, and "co-browsing." UHO purchased Polycom, a video conferencing software, webcams, and microphones. The software was installed on a computer in the main library reference desk and at a computer station in the South Campus outpost. Advantages of Polycom were the whiteboarding and screen-sharing features that enabled librarians to control the browser and applications on the patron's screen. Despite initial enthusiasm, marketing, and librarian training, the video reference service was not popular with patrons. Hillyer argues that a lack of user-needs testing, limited hours, and an inconvenient location of the video reference terminal contributed to the project's failure. Hillyer remained optimistic about the potential of video reference if re-focused to fit the users' needs.

Perhaps Skype might solve some of UNO's problems with Polycom. Skype, unlike Polycom, is free. Skype also offers screen-sharing and synchronous IM. The UNO librarians seemed overly concerned with students tampering with the material and reluctant to let students "drive" which is unfortunate. Reference literature suggests that, especially in an academic library setting, students learn information literacy skills by clicking the mouse themselves, rather than passively waiting for a librarian to retrieve a pdf of an article. Booth's article also mentioned the limitations of video kiosks: they can be located in hidden corners of the library, confuse patrons, and don't get much traffic. Instead of having a stable video reference kiosk that only one patron at a time can use, Skype would allow students to video chat with librarians from anywhere, and they wouldn't have to use unfamiliar computer stations or software. I would like to read about a successful video reference kiosk station-- it seems to me that such a kiosk doesn't exist! The UNO librarians were supposedly inspired by an audio kiosk seen at a museum, but I think there is a big difference between a casual museum-goer interacting with an exhibit and a reference interview conducted via library kiosk.

Video Reference and the Library Kiosk

Annotation #1

Booth, C. (2007). Video reference and the library kiosk: Experimentation and evaluation. Journal of Access Services, 5(1), 47-53.

This article is an excellent case study of the implementation of a Video Reference Kiosk in Alden Library at Ohio University. Although only in phase two of user-testing, the reference department at Alden Library has already identified several pros and cons of video reference and the kiosk model. Advantages, according to Booth, include the ability to simultaneously IM and video conference, resulting in a "best of both worlds" scenario where no visual cues are lost (a chief complaint of email reference and instant messaging) and where hyperlinks and navigation instructions can be provided in real time to the patron via IM. The Alden librarians experienced some hiccups: they tested Windows Live Messenger and Trillian Pro but found various features of these clients made them less desirable than Skype. Skype was preferred because it was open-access, allowed calls to be answered automatically, allowed one-way screening, and did not conflict with the IM client already being used for reference chats. Problems that arose included patrons tampering with the webcam, patrons being self-conscious and confused for the first few minutes of being on camera, and the "freak factor" of seeing a live librarian on screen while students roamed the stacks. Significantly, the Alden librarians' approach to installing "Skype a Librarian" services was the same as their approach to adopting reference IM services: they did usability testing to determine the needs of their patrons and possible advantages of the new technology, approaching Skype with both excitement and skepticism.

The article was written in 2007 and it looks like their "Skype a Librarian" page has gone live. One goal in the article was to expand Skype services from just the video kiosks to a general service that students could access from their personal computers. The methodology of going from a small, experimental kiosk before expanding to an Ask a Librarian is a good best practice for libraries. A danger of any new service is investing time, training, and money into something that never gets used. It was hard for me to gauge, however, whether there was a large patron interest in a Skype kiosk. Booth seems very excited about the project, despite her candidness about it's pitfalls. It remains to be seen whether new the Skype a Librarian service will have more use, but it is logical to assume so, since patrons who already use Skype at home might be more comfortable Skyping a Librarian from home than patrons who happen to pass by the "freakish" librarian inside the computer while they roam the stacks.

Ohio University Skype a Librarian Page

Skype for Surveillance

My initial research has turned up a wealth of articles about Skype in Library Lit. and LISTA databases. These articles mostly try to tell librarians how to bring skype to their library. It's a hot buzzword right now, but fewer long-term studies have been done on how it's actually being used. So far it seems like libraries and universities are using Skype in the following ways:

1. As a service for patrons to use to call others, cybercafe style
2. For distance learning, especially language tutoring
3. To provide video reference services

It's unclear how widespread these uses are.

I also did a Google Search for Skype and found a surprising amount of articles about surveillance and Skype's role in China. It seems Skype can be easily tapped and used for surveillance. In China, Skype handed over records of text messages to the Chinese government who looked for keywords related to political opposition.

"The Chinese government is not alone in its Internet surveillance efforts. In 2005, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency was monitoring large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program, intended to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11 attacks." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/technology/internet/02skype.html?_r=1

As someone who uses Skype a lot, I find it very disturbing that governments are using Skype for surveillance and eavesdropping on their citizens. The fact that China used it this way might not be surprising, given their history of cracking down on free speech and the opposition, but the fact that any other government could use Skype for spying is troubling. How much do I trust my own government? Will American libraries that offer Skype have to come up with "Skype spying" policies protecting their patrons and employees like they did with borrowing policies after September 11th?