In interactions that take place on Zoom, the mediating quality of the technology shapes the affordances that are available for interlocutors to display their participation. The present study turns the attention to one such possible affordance, namely, the camera. Drawing from two data sets (from an online crisis management training course, and from an online English language course), this research uses multimodal conversation analysis (Mondada, 2018) to analyze how interlocutors employ dynamic camera actions (including mobilizing a handheld camera, setting or adjusting the camera angle, and flipping the camera) in helping them to display their engagement and involvement in the asymmetrical joint interactional space on Zoom. The findings show that the participants employ the camera actions at transitional moments in interactions, thereby making salient the conditions and grounds of their forthcoming participation. Regarding the interactional accomplishments that result from the camera actions, the mobilized camera allows participants to navigate between "the overall meeting space” and “local space” (see Oittinen, 2020, p. 23) and to pursue two activities concurrently. By setting the camera angle in a certain way, participants communicate dual involvement, and by adjusting the camera angle toward a talking heads arrangement (Licoppe & Morel, 2012), participants communicate increased engagement and involvement (Licoppe & Morel, 2012, p. 427). The flipped camera works as a showing of the environment and thus serves as a means to communicate dual involvement also. Overall, participation is made “gaze worthy” (Licoppe & Morel, 2012, p. 408) via the employment of the dynamic camera actions.

One advantage that immersive virtual reality (VR) environments provide for technology-mediated interactions is the possibility of using shared objects. This study explores how participants learn to use a shared screen during VR collaboration. In VR, the properties of a shared screen differ from those in video-mediated interactions; the exact location of the screen in the immersive space and the way it is visibly configured for each participant can vary. As a result, mutual access to the screen and screen-related activities is fragmented (see Hindmarsh et al., 2006).

The data for this study come from 11 video-recorded team meetings in VR over a six-month period. Using longitudinal conversation analysis (Deppermann & Pekarek Doehler, 2021), the analysis focuses on the participants’ talk and multimodal conduct in relation to screen sharing in each meeting.

The analysis shows how the participants’ opening turns and initial actions in relation to the screen use change over time, reflecting their learning and past experiences with the screen. The analysis of other explicative turns referring to the screen also reveals changes in the participants’ orientation and problem-solving strategies regarding multiple challenges that emerge with the screen from meeting to meeting.

Given that VR is increasingly used in remote collaboration and training, the findings of this study provide valuable insights into participants’ gradual technology adaptation process. This study offers a lens into their interactional and intuitive strategies when aiming to understand how shared objects in VR work and can be used in collaboration with others.

References

Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Longitudinal Conversation Analysis—Introduction to the Special Issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899707

Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., & Fraser, M. (2006). (Im)materiality, virtual reality and interaction: Grounding the ‘virtual’ in studies of technology in action. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00672.x

This study explores the role that digital environments and social media play in young people’s everyday lives and more specifically how they relate to, use and discuss information they find online. Using the theoretical frameworks of ethnomethodology and multimodal interaction analysis, the analyses draw on on-going video ethnographic fieldwork in Upper secondary vocational education, to investigate young people’s (17-18 years) media habits and their digital and information literacies. Building on the documentation of everyday talk centering around mobile phones, the study examines the interactional organization of this basic technology-related activity, focusing on how joint smartphone use is accomplished in face-to-face dyads and multiparty settings. The analyses investigate how smartphones are used to mobilize peers’ interest in a variety of activities, such as showing, telling and sharing sequences as well as information-seeking quests. Preliminary results demonstrate how sharing-and-showing activities are affected by “layers of complexity” (Avgustis & Oloff, 2023), by drawing on the technological affordances of the device, its embeddedness in multiactivities and the organization of (multi-party) participation in which more or less attention to the actual device is required. In addition, preliminary findings shed light on the role of the information being shared, for example in terms of detecting facts and determining their truth. As such, the analyses show how these technology-centered activities play a central role in the mobilization and development of digital literacies but also, through different (affective) alignments, for building social relationships in peer groups.

Teaching in so called “hybrid ecologies”, in which there are both physically co-present and remote participants, presents some challenges. How to promote inclusion and equal opportunities to participate in interaction is one practical problem for educators and learners to solve in the moment (see e.g., Oittinen, 2022).

This study draws on video and screen recorded data from a crisis management course where the majority of students and teachers are physically in one location and there is one party attending the sessions using the video platform Zoom. I use conversation analysis (CA) (e.g., Sidnell & Stivers, 2012; see also Sacks et al., 1974) to examine the multimodal resources and practices the participants deploy to facilitate situated inclusion. More specifically, I focus on the timing and coordination of moments when a camera placed in the main room is mobilized by the local participants to grant the remote party better access to what is going on. The findings show the importance of verbal, embodied and screen-based resources for organizing these moments and including everyone in the ongoing interaction and pedagogical activity. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of the affordances of hybrid teaching environments for organizing social conduct.


Sources
Oittinen, T. (2022). Collaborative and inclusive practices in university students’ group-to-group videoconferencing sessions. Linguistics and Education.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sidnell, J. & T. Stivers (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.

This study investigates how language educators in Europe construct discourses around current challenges and anticipated futures within multilingual educational contexts. Anchored in a critical futures studies framework, it applies Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) to qualitative data derived from a future-oriented questionnaire administered to practicing teachers engaged in a professional development programme. By examining language across four analytical layers—litany, systemic causes, worldview, and myth/metaphor—the study reveals how educators articulate complex professional realities shaped by institutional, cultural, and ideological forces.

The analysis identifies recurrent themes such as the marginalization of language education, tensions surrounding technological integration, and the perceived dominance of English. At deeper levels, participants invoke metaphors—such as “language as a gateway” and “teaching as juggling”—to express concerns about agency, visibility, and the sustainability of linguistic diversity. These discursive constructions reflect not only systemic inequities but also the symbolic resources educators draw upon to reimagine language education.

By situating teachers’ discourse within broader sociocultural and policy contexts, the study contributes to interdisciplinary scholarship in discourse studies, applied linguistics, and educational futures. It demonstrates the value of futures-oriented qualitative methodologies for accessing latent dimensions of professional meaning-making and for informing inclusive, forward-looking strategies in language education.