Lecture Capture Pilot Project
at the University of Oxford 2015
Institutional Report
Matthew Gracey-McMinn
August 2015
1
Contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 3
2 General Comments............................................................................................................................... 3
3 Observations ........................................................................................................................................ 3
4 Benefitting from Replay ....................................................................................................................... 5
5 Requests from Interviewees ................................................................................................................. 5
6 Commonly Encountered Issues............................................................................................................. 6
7 Innovative Uses .................................................................................................................................... 8
8 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 9
9 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 10
2
1 Introduction
The department level reports (nine based on interviews; one based on student evaluations) revealed
similarities that have emerged in most, if not all, departments participating in the lecture capture
pilot project. Many of the departments benefitted from using the lecture capture system in similar
ways, whilst also facing many of the same issues, and having the same concerns. These institutionwide benefits and issues will have a significant impact upon the future lecture capture service
(Replay) at the University of Oxford. This report gathers, analyses, and makes recommendations
based upon these experiences.
This report also provides a brief examination and explanation of how Replay can be used beyond
simple lecture capture. It is hoped that this will provide some basis for further discussion of the
pedagogical advantages of the system, and inspiration for alternative uses of the technology that
may further support the student learning experience and promote Oxford University’s public
presence, where appropriate.
2 General Comments
Overall, and with the caveat of a few faults and issues, feedback from administrative staff, lecturers
and students has been very positive. A couple of lecturers were neither inclined nor disinclined
towards using the system; nevertheless they continue to use it, believing that it provides a solution
to the demands of students in a way that is both effective and unobtrusive. Ultimately, every
department participating in the pilot project is keen to continue using Replay, and, in most cases,
looking to expand their use. Meanwhile, more departments are asking to join the project.
There is much variation between of how and how extensively departments have used Replay; some
departments have limited themselves to straightforward lecture capture, whilst others have
employed it in other ways. In all cases, Replay is credited with having performed well.
3 Observations
Speaking with representatives of various departments has revealed the following to be common
amongst the participating departments:
a. Long-term recording of lectures: While for some departments this was a first foray into
recording lectures, others had done so, at least in some form, before joining the lecture
capture pilot project. In most cases this was done using a handheld recording device, then
uploading the audio file and PowerPoint slideshow to WebLearn (though these were not
synchronised and students had to guess when to move to the next slide). Some departments
employed such a system broadly, while in others it was undertaken by only a few individuals.
Nevertheless, it indicates that recording lectures is not a passing fad, but something in which
increasing numbers of lecturers and students are interested. Indeed, students are
increasingly expecting it as a standard feature in higher education institutions.
b. Focus on students: Students are generally perceived as the main beneficiaries of the system.
Departments adopt Replay to enhance and support student learning, with student requests
often providing the initial impetus behind adoption of the system. However, the opt-in
3
system means it is ultimately the lecturers who decide whether or not to record their
lectures, and so it is important that lecturers too should see some benefit, or at least suffer
no inconvenience, from using Replay.
c. Existing equipment and expertise: Departments with previous experience of lecture capture
have the equipment and expertise to facilitate the use of Replay, reducing the cost, difficulty
and issues associated with installing and maintaining the system.
d. Controlled access via WebLearn: WebLearn sites can be used to limit access to recordings.
By setting up a WebLearn site to launch the recordings, access is limited to students who
have an Oxford Single Sign On. This allows all students on the course to access the
recordings, but prevents non-University members from viewing them. Since the University is
charged for every hour of online viewing, it is wise to control access in this way. Those
seeking to publish materials publicly should refer to the information in e below.
e. Podcasting service: In many cases, Replay has been employed to produce recordings for
public consumption. Allowing public access to files on Panopto’s cloud hosted system risks
high viewing charges, and so recordings should be exported to MP4 to enable hosting
elsewhere, such as the University’s podcasting website or iTunesU. Those looking to publish
lectures publicly should contact the Educational Media team in IT Services for
recommendations on the best route to follow, depending on the ultimate purpose and
potential viewing audience.
f.
Innovative ideas: While the humanities are sometimes perceived as the subject area best
able to benefit from pedagogical innovation driven by the availability of recorded lectures,
the sciences can benefit too (See Professor James’s ‘podules’
(https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/portal/hierarchy/central/oucs/lect_capt/page/useful_project).
All the interviewees expressed interest in discovering what new ideas other departments
have implemented.
g. Pedagogical change: While lecture capture is often heralded as bringing interactivity into
lecture rooms, Oxford students and staff are largely opposed to such pedagogical changes.
Both groups feel that extra interactivity is unnecessary, as Oxford students have the benefit
of guided learning in tutorials as well as lectures; tutorials in particular, provide a smallgroup interactive learning environment. Academics fear that increased interactivity in
lectures would require either a reduction in the amount of content they could cover and/or
an increase in their workload – having to conceptualise and prepare a different type of
lecture, as well as the formal lecture that is recorded. Students also fear it would increase
their workload if they are expected to watch the recording of the formal lecture before the
live session and then be exposed to more or different material during the ‘new-style’ lecture.
Students are content to have extra, non-examinable materials available online, but core
course content should be the same in both online and live lectures.
4
4 Benefitting from Replay
The most commonly cited benefits of Replay are as follows:
a. Simplicity: The system is often praised as being easy to install, maintain (especially upgrade)
and use. Both those recording and viewing have had no issues navigating the system. The
automatically scheduled recording function has been described as very intuitive, and, when
employed, means lecturers do not have to do anything; their lectures are recorded ‘as if by
magic’. The manually initiated recording function is also easy to use, with speakers only
needing to log into WebLearn, launch the software recorder and press the start and stop
buttons. Similarly, students viewing lectures have found the interface easy to navigate and
use.
b. Superior to other methods: Some departments had previously employed alternative lecture
capture solutions, but found Replay to be preferable. The Department for Continuing
Education prefers software solutions, like Replay, to hardware options, while the
Department of Computer Science found Replay’s output to be better than that of their
previous system. Staff in the English Faculty no longer have to worry about the whereabouts
of handheld recorders and batteries, and found the editing process much quicker and easier.
Some staff were able to use the system with no training, whilst others were able to do so
after only a very brief (two to five minute) demonstration. Ultimately, it seems to have
performed well in comparison to other methods of recording lectures.
5 Requests from Interviewees
Many of the interviewees made requests for changes and support, the most common of which are:
a. Training and confidence: Users from many departments feel that they lack confidence in
using the system and that they are not able to use it efficiently. In some instances, mistakes
were made, while in others, staff were simply unaware of some of the software’s capabilities,
complicating otherwise simple tasks. Such issues were particularly pronounced in
departments with no local IT team to provide support. Even very short training sessions have
proved to be effective.
Further Notes: IT Services offers a lunchtime session twice a term, as well as
individual consultation and support on request. A Replay special interest group is
being established, with the first half-day session of talks and presentations scheduled
for Michaelmas Term 2015. The Replay team is also planning to offer briefing
sessions for academics and administrators in departments, on request. Contact
replay@it.ox.ac.uk. Furthermore, a help website, complete with “How to” videos, is
available at help.it.ox.ac.uk/replay.
b. Fewer features: Some departments complained that the software offers too many
unnecessary features, with one professor describing it as ‘overkill’. They would like the
option to hide or disable some of these features.
Further Notes: This seems a relatively minor complaint, as it is possible to simply
ignore the unneeded features. In addition, departments have different requirements
5
and so use different features; and it is not possible to create personalised versions of
the software.
c. Inter-departmental communication: Due to the University’s devolved structure, most
departments have little contact with one another. Consequently, it is difficult for innovative
ideas and uses of the lecture capture system to spread between departments. Many
interviewees expressed interest in a system of communicating between departments, so
that they may adopt and adapt the practices of other departments to their own
requirements.
Further Notes: The Replay team in IT Services has a communications plan to
facilitate raising awareness of the system, and how it may be used. The envisaged
special interest group will consist of termly meetings of representatives from
departments using Replay and IT Services staff, thus providing an opportunity to
share and discuss innovative ideas and uses of Replay.
6 Commonly Encountered Issues
The following issues were encountered by more than one department:
a. Connection speeds: Connection speeds proved to be a constant issue for both uploading
and streaming recordings. Recordings that include video are particularly troublesome, and
college members bemoaned the limitations of college networks.
Further Notes: College connections are the responsibility of the colleges in question.
If colleges experience IT issues, they should contact IT Support Staff Services (ITS3) to
discuss and resolve any connection or bandwidth problems:
http://www.it.ox.ac.uk/its3/. Video recordings will naturally produce larger files, and
thus possible uploading and streaming issues. The Department of Computer Science
suggested that students should download and view recordings offline, rather than
streaming them in order to stop the files from ‘hanging’. Encouraging departments
to make use of video recording only when strictly necessary could reduce the
problem.
b. Resistance from academics: Lecturers are sometimes reluctant to have their lectures
recorded, mostly due to misunderstanding the technology. Some lecturers seem put off by
terms like ‘lecture capture’, since they fear the University will ‘hoover up’ the material they
have created, and take ownership of it. Other lecturers voice concerns over the financial cost,
believing that free webcam software could do just as good a job as Replay. Worries about
reduced student attendance at live lectures are the most commonly voiced reason not to
use the system; this particular issue is addressed in point c below.
Further Notes: As part of the Replay pilot project, the team is working with Legal
Services, the Education Policy Unit, the Digital Education Strategy Group and
Disability Advisory Services. The first draft a University-wide policy on the use of
recorded lectures is expected during October (2015); this will do much to assure
lecturers that their intellectual property will not be infringed upon, and that there
will be guidance on permissible student use of recordings. Meanwhile, lecturers are
6
encouraged to consider recording their lectures by the positive experiences of their
colleagues; praise for Replay by word-of-mouth seems to be the most effective
means of mitigating resistance. While rapid adoption of the system seems unlikely, it
is probable that the use of Replay will grow year on year, as more lecturers are
convinced of its benefits by their colleagues.
c. Reduced attendance at live lectures: The most frequently voiced concern about recording
lectures is that it will encourage students to skip live lectures. This concern has been refuted
by various studies, as well as an OUSU survey (July 2014), which confirm that there is little
evidence that having access to recorded lectures will encourage students to skip lectures
(see Appendix).
Further Notes: Although it is a common concern here and in many other universities,
the vast majority of lecturers in the Oxford trial noticed no change in attendance
rates. They found that students use the online recordings as a tool to review and
recap, rather than replace, live lectures. One professor found, during her time using
Panopto at Newcastle University, that for learning foreign or Medieval languages,
online recordings of lectures can, in fact, improve attendance rates.
d. Phraseology: Many lecturers noted that they are significantly more careful about what they
say during a lecture when they were aware that it is being recorded; this was particularly
noticeable in the humanities and social sciences, where there is more room for debate and
controversy than in the hard sciences. While this encourages lecturers to take greater care
about the accuracy of information they impart, it has the disadvantage of discouraging
lecturers from speaking about unproven theories, discussing controversial issues, or making
provocative remarks to provoke a response from students.
Further Notes: Lecturers with more experience of being recorded tend to experience
this less than new adopters, thereby suggesting that this consciousness fades as
speakers become increasingly accustomed to being recorded. At Oxford, access to
recordings is generally restricted (via WebLearn) to students taking the course, so
lecturers should feel more comfortable if they are aware that the recording is
intended for their own students and not for public consumption.
e. Public access to recordings: Some departments are worried that the public will have easy
access to their material and that, consequently, it will be difficult to control their intellectual
property. Other departments have expressed interest in relaxing access controls to make the
recordings publicly available.
Further Notes: Presently, access to recordings is restricted via WebLearn, requiring
users to have an Oxford Single Sign On login and to be a member of the relevant
WebLearn site. Since the University is currently using a Panopto cloud hosted
solution, there is a charge for viewing hours and so it is necessary to restrict access in
this way.
Participants who wish to make recordings public can export the files in MP4 format
and host them elsewhere, thus bypassing the need to access the cloud and the
associated costs. This, however, removes any interactivity and search functionality
from the resulting ‘flat’ files.
7
Departments that want to make a large number of recordings publicly available
(such as the Department for Continuing Education), may find it necessary to acquire
a separate Panopto licence and use a locally deployed data storage solution. For
most departments however, acquiring and maintaining the IT equipment needed to
store huge amounts of data is not financially viable. When a department considers
recording a lecture for the public, they should contact the Education Media team in
IT Services, who can advise on the best solution.
7 Innovative Uses
While Replay does not demand pedagogical innovation, it does facilitate new ways of thinking about
the traditional lecture format. Some of the innovative uses of Replay are detailed here for reference:
a. Podules: Professor William James (of the School of Pathology) coined this term for a short
(about 10 minutes long) recorded overview of specific topics. Due to other commitments,
few students could attend the four one-hour lectures on Medical Evolution, and Professor
James felt shorter online talks may do better at reaching the students (see the 2014 report
at https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/portal/hierarchy/central/oucs/lect_capt/page/useful_project).
b. Summary lectures: Inspired by the aforementioned podules, Dr Stuart Lee (English Faculty)
replaced a lecture he was unable to present (due to time restraints) with a recording done in
his office. This recording focussed on background information, so that more time could be
dedicated during live lectures to literary analysis. Professor Henrike Lähnemann, too, is
planning to experiment with such summary lectures in the 2015/16 academic year. She
intends these summaries of a particular topic to supplement her live lectures. She warns
that such lectures are different in nature to live lectures, and so should be approached
differently (see separate reports on Dr Lee’s and Professor Lähnemann’s experiences for
more details).
c. Tours: In the past, Dr Lee created audio tours of museums and galleries, and hopes that
Replay will allow him to do so again (see the report on Dr Lee’s experiences for more details).
d. Webinars: The Oxford Human Rights Hub used Replay to broadcast a live seminar to
interested parties (of up to 100 people) around the globe. The broadcast allowed for
interaction between the conductors of the seminar, the audience in the room, and the
online audience (see the report on the Oxford Human Rights Hub’s use of Replay for more
details). Contact the Education Media Services team for advice in the light of increased costs
for increased viewer numbers.
e. Cancelled series: Lecture capture can allow cancelled lecture series to continue being
viewed by interested students and members of the public. Dr Lee once recorded a lecture
series that has since been cancelled, yet the recordings continue to be downloaded and
viewed (see the report on Dr Lee’s experiences for more details).
8
8 Summary
Overall, reactions to the use of Replay have been positive, with all the interviewees being happy to
continue using it in the future. Many lecturers voiced concerns about the impact the system may
have on teaching methods at the University, but the increasing numbers electing to record their
lectures indicate that these concerns are either unfounded, or outweighed by the benefits of using
Replay. The other common issues are either unrelated to Replay itself (i.e. the quality of internet
connections) or questions on how exactly to implement Replay (e.g. the extent to which recordings
should be available to the public). There is a slow, but steady increase in the number of lecturers
making use of the system, and it seems probable that many more will elect to participate when
Replay is rolled out as a full service and the University establishes an official policy on recording
lectures and permissible use of the recordings.
Ultimately, lecture recording has a long history at the University of Oxford, with many individual
lecturers having created recordings of their own lectures. Replay, as a lecture capture solution,
facilitates and formalises the process, making it available to all lecturers, with no required increase
to their workload or impact on their current teaching practices. The technology can also facilitate
pedagogical innovation, enhancing teaching and the student experience. Moreover, as more higher
education institutions adopt lecture capture, increasing numbers of students expect it as a standard
feature of higher education; in its absence they are likely to make their own recordings using mobile
phones and laptops. The availability of an institutionally approved lecture capture system
discourages this behaviour, allowing for better controls on intellectual property, whilst
simultaneously providing students with a high quality tool to support their studies.
9 Recommendations
1. Use existing equipment and expertise to reduce costs and facilitate the installation of Replay
in departments.
2. Roll out training as planned by the Replay team, in consultation with departments.
3. Roll out the communications plan as intended.
4. Ensure the University’s lecture capture policy protects the intellectual property of lecturers.
5. Focus on students to encourage departments to adopt Replay. Students seem most keen to
have this tool available to them, and Undergraduate Joint Consultative Committees (or other
student bodies) can wield a lot of influence over the teaching methodologies and tools used
in a department. These student bodies could provide reluctant departments and lecturers
with the impetus needed for them to consider using Replay.
6. Continue with the opt-in system, allowing lecturers to be guided by their own needs and
preferences, and the word-of-mouth experiences of their colleagues.
7. Encourage departments to use video only when strictly necessary (according to the current
approach). In most instances, audio and slides are sufficient to meet student needs.
9
Appendix
Extract from Karnad, Arun (2013), Student use of recorded lectures: a report reviewing
recent research into the use of lecture capture technology in higher education, and its impact
on teaching methods and attendance, London School of Economics and Political Science,
London, UK.
‘Conclusion
The papers reviewed in this report, whilst using varying measurement parameters and studying
different groups of students studying a variety of courses, have reached some common
conclusions on the questions of student use of recorded lectures and its effect on attendance.
The majority of these papers concluded that students liked having access to recorded lectures,
and mainly used them to make up for missed lectures, and to review lectures in order to
prepare for assessments (Soong et al. 2006; Traphagan et al. 2009; Gosper et al. 2008). Students
in most studies also preferred access to live lectures, with most preferring a blended format
incorporating lecture recordings, live lectures, course materials and additional classes. Studies
have suggested that lecture capture may also be a helpful tool for students with learning
disabilities (Giliberti et al. 2012) and NESB students (Shaw & Molnar, 2011). Therefore, there is
scope for further research into the use of recorded lectures by these students.
The perception that access to recorded lectures lowered student attainment has also been
disputed by most of the papers considered in this review, with lecture recordings having a
slightly positive, or negligible effect on student attainment, and even a rise in student grades
and lecture attendance in some cases (Franklin et al. 2011). This may be due to the strategic
manner in which students use lecture recordings to reinforce their understanding of lecture
material, rather than viewing recordings as a replacement for attending lectures.
Whilst access to recorded lectures was reported to be the reason for some students being
absent at live lectures, attendance could have been affected by a range of factors, including the
level of student maturity and natural declines in student attendance over time. There seems to
be little evidence that having access to recorded lectures is the main cause or incentive to miss
lectures. In fact, the majority of students (55%) surveyed by Traphagan et al. (2009) strongly
agreed that they preferred receiving lecture content in class, even when it is available through
other means. Massingham & T. Herrington (2006), found that illness or competing priorities
such as work or other lectures were more cited reasons for students missing lectures than
availability of recorded lectures. However, Massingham & T. Herrington (2006) also note that
“students only attend lectures if they perceive ‘value’ in them”, and having access to lecture
recordings is unlikely to have an effect on classes which are not generally valued by students.
Therefore, whilst lecture capture technology offers many benefits and pitfalls, its current role in
higher education remains a supportive one in relation to live lectures, which are yet valued
higher by students than their recorded equivalents.’
10