The film clips below capture key moments in the cross-cultural exchange between students involved in the Cross-Cultural Rhetoric Project. By watching these clips, you can gain insight into the activities and conversations that characterized our collaboration.

Click on the image to activate the clip. If it doesn't automatically play, either download Quicktime (free) from Apple.com or save the clip to your desktop and then open using the media player (i.e. Real Media) of your choice.

	Clip 1: Overview. This clip offers an overview of a video conference experience from the perspective of Stanford students. It showcases the format, technology, and interaction typical of a CCR exchange. (Fall 2008)
	Clip 2: Song. During their first videoconference, Örebro students performed "Små Grodorna " ("Little Frog" - a traditional Swedish children's song, complete with hand gestures) for their Stanford partners as an icebreaker to start off their cross-cultural exchange. (Winter 2007)
	Clip 3: Technology & Language I. After a productive conversation together, Stanford and Örebro students experience a moment of muted communications when Örebro students briefly talk to each other in Swedish and Stanford students respond by muting their microphone so they can simulate the experience of speaking in a way that is only understood by their own group. (Winter 2007)
	Clip 4: Technology & Language II. Faced with both a technology challenge (low speaker/mike volume) and language issues (at least one student in Örebro struggled with conversing in English) this group innovated to solve both rather than letting these issues ruin their discussion. They held the speaker/mike closer to their mouths to amplify volume, and a Stanford student explained a discussion point to the Örebro student in a language they shared (Spanish), bringing that student more fully back into the group discussion. (Winter 2008)
	Clip 5: Television Commercial. Prior to this videoconference, two students had posted an analysis of a Budweiser commercial on their group blog; in the commercial, someone throws a rock at another person's head in order to steal his beer. One student began discussion by asking, "Do you think it would be funny to have a rock thrown at your head?" Together, the group sharpens that question to one that more directly engages the rhetorical properties of the commercial and then moves to analyze how humor operates in different cultures. (Winter 2007)
	Clip 6: Anti-Smoking Advertisement. During small group work about European Anti-Smoking advertisements, Stanford students direct their Örebro partners to an ad that correlates smoking with impotence, leading to a discussion of audience. (Winter 2007)
	Clip 7: Political Rhetoric. During a discussion of political speeches by Swedish Prime Minister Fredrick Reinfeldt and U.S. President George Bush, students in this group move from rhetorical analysis of the conclusion of the speech to a discussion about intercultural differences in the separation of Church and State. (Winter 2007)
	Clip 8: University Websites. The group's analysis of the Stanford website initiates a discussion about the differences between college student life at Örebro University and Stanford University. (Winter 2007)
	Clip 9: Grouping by Gender. This clip records an interesting group dynamic in which students begin to bond by gender, rather than by institutional affiliation. While discussing a YouTube clip about the differences in how men and women shower, the women in Stanford & Örebro form one group, separating themselves from the male student who becomes a spokesperson for his gender. (Winter 2008)
	Clip 10: Tech Difficulties: Echo. This clip powerfully demonstrates how the introduction of an echo into the discussion completely disrupts the group dynamic, as one Stanford participant withdraws from the conversation because of the distraction. (Fall 2007)
	Clip 11: Reflection. During an informal break in a small group activity, one group comments on the types of texts that work best for cross-cultural analysis, remarking on their own hesitation to peer review each other's written analysis. (Winter 2007)
	Clip 12: Challenge of Documentation. This clip exemplifies some of the problematics of conducting a research study where students, conscious of being observed, might alter their responses to cater to a perceived audience. (Fall 2007)