Archives for the month of: September, 2017

On 11th September 2017 I went to the Leicester University’s event “Implementing Lecture Capture: what are we learning?“. Lots of useful discussion, and I presented one of three case studies in addition to Leicester’s own story which is told well through their videos, (see event page).  Thanks to my colleague Jon Owen, Service Owner for Lecture Capture Service for his info into the presentation below.

Here’s my talk on Warwick’s lecture capture journey,

lectcappres1

lectcappres2

So what have we learnt?

Lecture capture is an educational technology driven by student demand

The Warwick echo360 pilot started as replacement for Camtasia Relay. That was a tutor-managed approach where they had to finish session early to process recording in time, and there was no standard way to provide recordings to students. The A/V Service Owner knew better options were becoming available and started the pilot in 2012 with the equally forward-thinking Chemistry Department (what is it about Chemists that make them technology early adopters?!)

Lecture capture quickly became a hot topic on campus and was in every Student Union education officer candidate’s manifesto since 2012.

The service got students attention, and we’re making it happen: a definite good news story for responding to student demands.

I forgot to mention this but Sarah Williamson from Loughborough reminded us that the withdrawal of the Disabled Students Allowance meant that HEFCE/BIS put the onus on universities to replace the paid-for notetakers with institutional lecture capture systems.

 

Lecture capture shines a spotlight on different approaches to teaching

I’m not just talking about the frequent debates about chalkboards!

Talking with academics about their use of, and concerns around, lecture capture highlights:

  • the balance of their teaching between large lectures, smaller lectures, seminars, group work etc
  • the extent to which they teach as part of teams or quite autonomously
  • the implicit content delivery models, relationship to textbooks, coupling between teaching delivery and curriculum, how often content changes, whether content contains commercially sensitive materials or possibly high value research material
  • attitudes to attendance – how much does it matter, is it monitored, do students have choices?
  • approach to discussions – do they happen in lectures? how do staff and students feel about being recorded? does it deter them from asking questions, is that because of learner culture or potential future use of recordings?
  • position on use of screens in sessions: do we want students to be looking at screens as well as the lecturer? Some academics happy with focussed screen use for small group teaching but not ok with use in lecture theatres

Lecture capture is a battleground for intellectual property and academic freedom

Lecture capture highlights staff concerns about:

  • terms and conditions of copyright ownership
  • surveillance and monitoring
  • team staffing models and job security

By its nature it is a central service with centrally-imposed policies,which in some institutions automatically attracts suspicion and dissent!

The technical landscape is complex

There are multiple teams involved in Lecture Capture, with different concepts of “rollout” and different support models. A/V specialists are used to providing time-critical responsiveness, VLE teams often need a few days or a week or longer to fully resolve a user’s issues. We have different but complimentary service cultures.

Integrating with the VLE adds value but also different dependencies and constraints: information structure and end-to-end workflows

Software infrastructure: video capture, editing, management and sharing is a confusing converging marketplace. Alongside echo360 we have planet estream integrated to the VLE for video management and streaming, and as we already have Turning Technologies Responseware we have an overlap with echo360’s Active Learning Platform. I know from other institutions too that this is a tricky space to manage and predict: overlap seems inevitable but it can look like duplicated spend.

Timetable-driven lecture capture is harder than it should be. My colleague Russell Boyatt has created some scheduling middleware between our cached timetable data and our lecture capture system, but the data itself is complex and the additional workflows required to handle a fluid timetable are challenging.

How much do the added value features and analytics get used? We pay for them as part of the platform, and its great to hear when people are using them. But in my experience they’re not used very much, and we’re not pulling them through to any kind of learning analytics data aggregation yet. And a seperate issue: editing. Do you encourage staff to top and tail recordings, or do you encourage release of raw footage and let students move the slider bars? If topping and tailing feels like a steep learning curve for staff, is it justified by benefits to students? I think raw footage is fine.

What do we do about transcripts and captioning? How do we optimise for accessibility and inclusion in an affordable and scaleable way? This is an area of fast moving technology development, so we need to keep a watching brief. But that alone could take someone half a day a week, can we afford to do that? or will we need to wait for lecture capture suppliers to have approved integrated suppliers at a reasonable cost on an on-demand basis with some authorisation involved from someone appropriate at the university!

It is an opportunity to think ahead

What will the best technical infrastructure be in 5 years time? As I said, its a complex technical landscape with many players, its hard to plan far ahead.

Retention. How long should we keep recordings, for the purposes of revision and audit, and how do cloud cost models change that? There was a useful discussion of this later in the day.  Basically many institutions retain materials for the programme duration plus one year. Which is usually four or five years. Many institutions started their lecture capture service in the last five years. So only a few people in the room had gone through the process of deleting recordings. Some institutions don’t delete. Because many institutions make recordings available through the VLE, lecture recording access is determined by VLE access. So the important time is when students lose access to the VLE and therefore to recordings: that is the de facto end of access. 

Lecture capture brings elearning teams into the world of capital spend and corporate comms, how do we benefit from the visibility? Leicester University speakers stressed how their lecture capture system is part of their Digital Campus and integrated into their overall investment plan.

Are we capturing normal lectures or trying to changing lectures? Are we promoting a service, developing a practice or enforcing a policy? This was one of the recurrent themes of the days discussions.

Closing Thoughts

My final slide was:

  • Build on the momentum to enhance the wider technology-enhanced teaching landscape
  • Amplify the student voice but explain the limitations and concerns
  • Recognise staff concerns but challenge them:
    • Attendance
    • Copyright
    • Bootlegging
  • Have an explicit policy to counter rumours and myths
  • Value the many roles that go into providing and supporting lecture capture
  • …. and don’t forget to switch on the mic!

 

 

A good event, thank you to Leicester for the invite.

There’s a huge amount of data and information on lecture capture practices but I wanted to highlight a few:

Barbara Newland’s data from Heads of eLearning Survey

Emma Kennedy’s post “Opposing lecture capture is disablist”

Matt Cornock et al’s work on student use of lecture recordings

WIHEA funded projects at Warwick:

 

 

 

Advertisements

This is my 5 minute talk on Business Cases from our ALT-C Session on Evidence Bases and Business Cases (1702). This was composed jointly with Dr Melissa Highton.

It is fashionable to roll your eyes about “management concerns”  as if it’s somebody else’s problem. But when you get to a certain level as a learning technologist you have to develop some understanding of management issues and administrative domain Kyriaki Anagnostopoulou illustrated in her opening talk.

If you don’t trust “them” to make good decisions, you need to get better at understanding what decisions “they” are making, and how.

I thought about making a Jargon Bingo card for this talk. But this isn’t a spoof talk. I’ve worked in this field for nearly 20 years, at an institutional and national level. and I am very bored of learning technologists who like to snigger at institutional management. Here’s what I’ve learned along the way …

Business Cases

Business Cases are a structured way of laying out the evidence that a proposed investment in people, time and cash, is a worthwhile risk that will create benefits in the right places at the right time, to a big enough extent that it is worth it. Laying out the Cost Benefit Analysis. And that “is it worth it?” is known as Return on Investment. There are models for all of that, but don’t be blinded by it being management speak: learn it.

It’s not always scientifically applied. But if a senior manager wants to champion your proposal, you need to know how to provide that sort of argument. It goes both ways: if someone important wants to block your proposal, they might ask for the business case. You can’t even have the argument if you don’t speak the language.

Strategic Alignment

I think there’s a paradox to learning and teaching strategies. If they are good, they are obvious, and they make you think they are unnecessary. But we need them. We set strategic direction because anything is possible with unlimited resource but there is never unlimited resource. So how do we avoid exhausting ourselves exploring every new piece of software, academic’s idea, technology practice? We describe our priorities and try to combine our efforts to get us there rather than all do everything at once. So always explain how your proposal will help the institution make progress.

Have I cracked that, personally? Of course not. But I have learned that strategy does matter and if you always ask yourself about what your institutional priorities are then you have a better chance of securing support for what you think is important.

Who makes decisions at your institution, and when? Understand your planning cycle and the priorities of major stakeholders.

So …

Where do learning technologists go wrong? This is from my experience at Becta and Jisc as well as at the institutions I’ve worked at …

Costs

Academic time is the biggest cost on campus. You might call it three hours of CPD, but they may see it as three hours mandatory training. Try to be honest about their time: estimate the cost of the learning curve so that it can be weighed up against the benefits. Academic stakeholders will prefer honesty to evangelism.

IT and Library is often treated as an invisible cost, just stretchy infrastructure that doesn’t need quantifying: its just there. Don’t make that mistake. Yes they are there to support the rest of the university but they are also people that are paid for 36.5 hours a week, they’re not magic.

Be realistic about costings: suppliers calculate costs in different ways, make sure you do your research, whether its an upfront cost by FTE banding, or whether it monitors concurrent users, and whether it includes VAT. Do the numbers.

By the way, cash costs are usually the least problematic. And capital spend, one-off spend, is the accountants favourite, they’d much prefer spend £100k this year than £20k a year over four years.

Benefits

Learn the language of Use Cases: use cases are our friends. And be alert to those early adopters and innovators who push for meeting edge cases.

(Improving 50 people’s fulfilment of use cases by 80% might not be as good an investment as improving 500 people’s fulfilment of use cases by 20%)

Helping the majority of neutral users and solving their pain might be more important than added value for the already active users. That might sound counterintuitive, but think about it.

Also, on benefits: not all benefits need to be pedagogical improvements. They might be efficiency gains to free up departmental administrators from maintenence tasks to planning tasks. They might be PR gains, or data quality gains. Don’t confine yourself to pedagogical impacts: broaden your vocabulary.

Option Appraisals

Management want transparent decision making about a particular approach or product is best. Share your workings. You can say which is your preference, but understand that if people help make a decision a) it’s more likely to be a good decision and b) they’re more likely to help it to success.

It might not be the outcome you expected but by respecting the process you become trusted as part of it.

Sustainability and Scaleability

When I evaluated bids at Jisc I was often surprised how many bidders didn’t understand what we meant when we asked for a sustainability plan. Many said “another Jisc grant”. Others assumed IT Services will take it on, without evidence that has been discussed with them. Imagine future you five years from now inheriting management of today’s proposal. Take the future seriously.

So here’s my provocation …

Institutional learning technology is not about perfection

As Diana Laurillard might say, anyone with unlimited time and resource could design a perfect bridge. But in institutional capability building terms, which approaches can be repeated and supported, another 20 times, 100 times, 1,000 times? It’s a bit like the National Institute for Clinical Excellence: what is efficacious and affordable at scale?

If you want to influence your institution, learn the language of management. ITIL, Prince2, Business Models. Understand them as much as you want them to understand you. Bring senior managers fully costed business cases with options clearly indicated. Bring them proposals they can say yes to.

I convened a panel to create a workshop drawing on various sessions and discussions I’ve been part over over the last year or so.

The session is Evidence Bases and Business Cases, session 1702, and it runs on Wednesday 6th September at 1pm.

Panel is Dr Kyriaki Anagnostopoulou, Bath Spa University, Professor Neil Morris, University of Leeds, Professor Don Passey, University of Lancaster and Sarah Davies, Jisc. Melissa Highton, University of Edinburgh is unable to attend but jointly composed the Business Cases talk.

I will link here to relevant posts and slides when available

My post on Business Cases : Business Cases and Learning Technologists.