In some cases, the use of online tools in digital pro - jects enabled easy insights into the lives of the in - dividual participants. For instance, in some cases the participants produced short videos to introduce them - selves and their everyday lives to the others. Besides these videos, which were created ahead of the project, some participants went live on camera and showed the others their apartments, or even trained the camera on the street outside or walked through their neighbour - hoods. This gave the participants an impression of the others‘ daily lives without having to leave their own ho - mes. However, the majority of the projects focused less on participants’ personal lives and more on the spe - cificities of the partner countries in question (cuisine, traditions and customs, etc.). In other words, it became clear that the country-neutral nature of online spaces does not necessarily mean the focus is directed at in - dividual, i.e. personal, differences or commonalities, a potential benefit that had been discussed previously. In addition, the results indicate that in online set - tings, a deliberate effort has to be made to explain the partner culture. Reasons for this include a less ac- tive “transnational” dialogue and the lack of opportuni- ty to experience the partner country’s culture up close and personal. This was particularly the case with hybrid sessions, where groups from both countries connected online. In settings like this, one challenge is to structure the online activity in such a way that there is genuine interaction between the two groups, not just activity wit - hin the respective national groups. Getting to know the partner culture is not the only challenge; informal interactions and group dyna - mics, too, acquire a different character in online settings. This needs to be taken into account when structuring a digital project. Some interviewees in - dicated that if the structure of the project is too rigid, there is not enough space for informal interaction. They spoke of too strong a focus on the actual agenda and too little time for chatting. To account for this, the team leaders and participants made the following sugge - stions: • More frequent work in small groups • More interim activities to loosen up the agenda • Offline (in-person) meetings at the beginning and end of a project, so that participants have a chan - ce to get to know each other informally right from the beginning
In regard to communication among the young peo - ple, the data suggest that even online, this can pose challenges and – not unlike in offline settings – needs to be actively encouraged. One potential rea - son for this may be technical obstacles, such as the need to switch on one’s camera and microphone be - fore speaking, as one young participant suggested in the group discussion. He shared why he thought there were problems with communication among the parti - cipants in his project, and why he felt it was easier to interact in person: „Maybe it has something to do with the barrier ‚you have to open your microphone‘, ‚you have to open your video camera maybe and then you say somet - hing‘ maybe like that? And yes, if you’re talking on site, live, it is easier. You can see your opponent all the time. You can see his emotion great. You can see his sound great. You can contact with him. You can, I don‘t know, shake your hands with and say hello and a lot of things.“ (participant, group discus- sion) Most of the projects in scope had chosen English as their working language. This, too, was seen by some experts as the reason why communication was occa - sionally difficult. Asked for their opinion, the intervie - wees said that participants were afraid of making mis - takes in English. However, some team leaders felt that using interpreters was not the solution. They explained that it was more important to create an atmosphere in which participants could feel comfortable using less- than-perfect English to interact, and in which they felt they could ask for help if they had difficulties with comprehension. However, communication was also hampered by technical problems such as a slow inter - net connection or too many live microphones at once. When English is chosen as the working language for an online project, participants have little opportunity to engage with the language spoken in the partner count- ry. This is where Language Animation methods can be helpful, provided they are adapted to the specific re - quirements of an online setting. Hybrid settings pose particular challenges when it co - mes to microphone discipline, because here often an entire country group shares just one camera and mic. In formats like these, care must be taken to ensure that every participant can be heard and seen well. Hybrid can also mean one or several country groups are in one
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs