Theoretical Physics:
Professor Steve Simon’s Lecture
Capture Experience
Lecture Capture Case Study
Matthew Gracey-McMinn
July 2015
1
Contents
1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Challenges ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Context .......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 3
2 Successful Use ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Feedback from Lecturer ................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Feedback from Students ............................................................................................................... 5
3 Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Matters of Concern ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Future Plans .................................................................................................................................. 6
4 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Common Themes with other Departments and Faculties ............................................................ 7
4.2 Lessons Learnt............................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 7
2
1 Overview
Professor Steve Simon presents a lecture series on Condensed Matter for undergraduates in the
Department of Physics. The series covers the basics of solid state physics, and is compulsory for all
undergraduate students studying for the BA in Physics. It is also a very popular choice amongst
students taking the joint course: Physics and Philosophy. The lectures on Condensed Matter had
previously been recorded and made publicly available on the University’s podcasting website and
ITunesU. However, for the past two years, Professor Simon has participated in IT Services’ lecture
capture technical trial and pilot project, making use of Replay (based on Panopto). In both years, the
latest lectures have been recorded and made available to students through WebLearn. Thus
students can access earlier public versions of the lectures, as well as those from the last two
academic years.
1.1 Challenges
Professor Simon makes extensive use of the chalkboard, and so Replay had to be capable of
capturing his writing on the board. He does so as it slows the pace of the lecture, allowing students
to digest and copy down equations, and so, ultimately, he does it for the students’ sake. This pattern
is mimicked by his adoption of lecture capture which he believes is beneficial for student learning,
and furthermore it costs him nothing. Discussions with students have revealed that they are happy
with his lectures as they are, so he is resistant to consider any pedagogical changes (e.g. changing
the nature or content of the live lectures). Thus, the system had to be unobtrusive and provide
support for existing teaching methods. Ideally, it should also act as a tool to facilitate revision and
review, especially for weaker students.
1.2 Context
A textbook (written by Professor Simon) that covers exactly the same material as the lectures
supports the Condensed Matter series. Consequently, students have a variety of review and revision
tools available to them already.
As this is an undergraduate course with a large number of students, the lectures are presented and
recorded in the large Martin Wood lecture theatre, with a live audience.
1.3 Implementation
Although there have been no significant changes to the course during the last two years, both sets of
live lectures were recorded (Hilary Term 2014 and Hilary Term 2015). Recordings consist of video (so
as to include the chalkboard), audio and slide capture. In 2014, the video recording was done
manually by Steve Pierce from IT Services, but in 2015 a fixed camera was installed at the back of the
lecture hall (on a long-term loan from the Replay lecture capture project in order to facilitate this
particular type of use). In the interests of the pilot project, Steve Pierce set up the remote schedule
for the whole term, so that each lecture was automatically recorded at the scheduled time.
Professor Simon admits that he did nothing to initiate the recording, and instead it all ran ‘magically’
by itself. (It should be noted that the future Replay service will need to be administered and
managed by departmental staff.)
3
2 Successful Use
The adoption of lecture capture in general, and more specifically Replay, has not led to any
pedagogical changes. However, lecture capture has slowly spread through the department, and is
being used for an increasing number of courses. Professor Simon sees it as an ‘extremely useful’ tool,
and notes that students seem happy to have it as an additional form of learning support.
2.1 Feedback from Lecturer
Professor Simon is happy with the recordings, stating that the ‘quality was very good’, and that the
system required no effort from him. He found Panopto’s ability to handle several separate input
streams to be particularly useful, as it allows students to easily view both the video (with chalkboard
annotations) and the accompanying PowerPoint slides.
His own conversations with students revealed that they too find it useful, but he is unsure of the
extent to which they are using the recordings. He believes that they view the recordings to recap
difficult topics immediately after lectures, and as a revision tool shortly before exams. He noted in
particular that he believes students will watch recordings in the run up to exams, but are less likely
to do so when exams are very close, since they may be panicking and think they do not have enough
time to watch an hour-long lecture.
Viewing statistics relating to this lecture series reveals that students do indeed use the recordings as
Professor Simon expects. Interestingly, the statistics also show that students prepare for a lecture by
watching the previous year’s recording before attending the live lecture. Despite this, Professor
Simon sees no change in students’ engagement with lectures, or in their ability to answer questions most students refuse to answer questions when called upon (though he does note that this is
possibly due to the students’ reluctance to speak in front of a large group of peers).
Unexpectedly, recorded lectures also prove a useful review tool for Professor Simon. He viewed the
recordings of his previous year’s lectures before presenting them again, in order to recap the topic
himself, and make slight adjustments to the content and delivery.
Lecture capture has neither increased nor decreased Professor Simon’s workload, and as long as it
benefits his students, and costs him nothing, he will continue to use it. He does, however, note that
being recorded (whether the recording be publicly accessible or limited only to students) would be
more nerve-wracking had he not already been giving the lecture series for some years. After a few
years he can be sure that most, if not all, points of confusion have been ironed out, and so he feels
more confident about producing a permanent recording of his lectures. Had he not had these years
to prepare, he would probably be far less confident about having his talks recorded, for fear of
misinforming his students and immortalising his mistakes.
While Professor Simon is pleased with the system overall, he is resistant to using it as anything other
than a supplement to existing teaching methods and tools. Similarly, he does not foresee it sparking
significant pedagogical changes in the Department of Physics. While he can see the potential for
increased interactivity in a live lecture (in the light of the availability of a full recorded version), he
does not believe it is either necessary or desirable at Oxford, as tutorials already provide students
with a level of personal attention and interactivity that is not available at most other institutions.
Furthermore, the course needs to cover a large amount of material; as there is no way to reduce this,
4
and greater interactivity in the lecture hall would require more time, he thinks any major changes in
the teaching methodologies of the department would be unfeasible.
2.2 Feedback from Students
Although Professor Simon suggested that he is willing to consider changing his teaching practice if
students ask for it, his discussions with them have revealed that they too are resistant to change.
They want the live lectures to cover the same material as the recorded lectures. In effect, they want
the recordings to serve as a revision tool. If recorded lectures were to become the basis of the
course and live lectures opportunities to explore certain more difficult concepts or to answer
questions, they fear that it would only add to their workload. Ultimately, students are content to
have extra materials and tools available online, whilst core material is explained in lectures; or for
both online and live lectures to cover the same materials, but they do not want core material to be
available only online.
Professor Simon believes that there was a slight drop in attendance at his live lectures (although he
acknowledges it is difficult to be sure, as rates fluctuate so much year-to-year). He hopes that those
students who were not attending lectures were taking advantage of the recordings to keep up to
date.
Finally, in the past, students have complained that Professor Simon speaks too quickly and covers
too much material for them to follow. While he acknowledges that this may be a problem, he has
been unable to decelerate the pace of the course due to the sheer amount of material that has to be
covered. Lecture capture has relieved this issue somewhat, by providing students with a means by
which to review difficult sections of lectures and recap topics they did not fully grasp the first time.
In addition, recorded lectures can be paused, giving students the opportunity to take comprehensive
notes or wrestle with a topic without worrying about missing the rest of the lecture.
3 Issues
While Professor Simon’s experiences with lecture capture have generally been good, he raised a few
points of concern.
3.1 Matters of Concern
a. Technical Difficulties: Although Replay has proven to be a very stable system, there
were two occasions on which lectures failed to be recorded; one in each year that
Panopto has been used. Fortunately, in both cases it was a revision lecture that was
missed, which included no new material.
Further Notes: It may be worth investigating the cause of these missed
recordings, to ensure it does not spread to include more vital lectures in future.
b. Connection Issues: Issues in accessing recordings from a college internet connection.
Further Notes: This is likely caused by a combination of the college having a
poor connection and the use of video recordings (as these put more strain on
connections than audio and slides only). Professor Simon noted that the college
is upgrading its internet connection, which may solve the issue.
5
c. Student Improvement: Professor Simon has noted no improvement in student
performance in class since the introduction of lecture capture. He stated that it is
impossible to tell if students’ exam performance has improved, as the difficulty level of
the exams varies significantly year-to-year.
Further Notes: Professor Simon acknowledged that student participation during
a large lecture may be inhibited by natural shyness which may impact upon
their willingness to answer the questions he poses. Furthermore, most students
attending the live lectures may be referring to recordings only as revision tools
before exams, and so cannot be expected to show improvement in the
classroom (in terms of increased interactivity).
d. Unnecessary Features: Professor Simon is impressed by Panopto’s ability to capture onscreen mouse movements, but does not really feel it is a necessary feature, describing it
as ‘overkill’.
Further Notes: Not all departments will want or need to make use of the full
range of functions of any lecture capture solution. In answer to this, the
software provider introduces improvements to the interface with each new
version, and the Replay team submits feature requests that we think may be
viable based on institutional needs, and, as such, the interface will continue to
be improved.
e. Cost: Professor Simon expressed some concerns over the cost of Panopto. He feels that
the capabilities of the software and the high quality of recordings are likely to come at a
disproportionately high price. He believes that free webcam software could probably do
the same job at no cost.
Further Notes: When speaking to lecturers about Panopto (or any other lecture
capture solution the University may decide to pursue), it may be worth
mentioning the very low cost to each department, and especially the benefits of
purchasing a more expensive system compared to a cheaper variant (especially
with regard to editing and other advanced functions).
3.2 Future Plans
While Professor Simon is unaware of any official plans to expand use of lecture capture in the
department, he noted that an increasing number of lecturers are choosing to adopt the system. He
feels lecturers should be encouraged, but not required to adopt lecture capture.
He drew attention to certain politicians looking to increase the amount of inter-university teaching
in which Oxford participates, and notes that Replay’s live-streaming capabilities could facilitate that;
although he is unaware of any plans to do so within the University.
Professor Simon will no longer be taking this undergraduate course; it will be taught by another
lecturer in the department, who may or may not elect to use lecture capture. He is unsure of
whether the department will retain his own recordings and make them available to students.
Professor Simon will be teaching a graduate-level course from the 2015/2016 academic year, but has
no plans to use lecture capture. While he would be willing to do so if students requested it, he
6
believes graduate students have less need of a tool for revision purposes. They are ‘excellent
students’, who are generally interested in seeking out more challenging material than that covered
in lectures, and so would be unlikely to rely on recordings.
4 Summary
Professor Simon has found lecture capture to be an effective and useful supplement to his live
lectures and textbook. His student-focused teaching methods led him to adopt lecture capture as a
tool to help students with recapping and revising (and particularly to aid weaker students). However,
as students have demonstrated no desire for innovative use of the software, and he does not believe
the structure of course would allow for such changes, he has limited use of the software to recording
his regular series of lectures each term.
While he sees the benefit of providing students with additional resources, he feels lecture capture is
useful only within certain contexts. It should neither demand pedagogical change for the sake of
change, nor should it be forced upon lecturers or classes. The slow but steady adoption of lecture
capture by others in the department, however, suggests that it does have wide appeal, advantages
in numerous contexts, and that lecturers in the department are satisfied with the results and are
recommending it to their peers.
4.1 Common Themes with other Departments and Faculties
As with several other interviewees, Professor Simon expressed interest in how other departments
are making use of lecture capture. He is particularly interested in how other ‘hard sciences’ are using
the software, since he believes that the nature of the discipline enables more or less use of
innovative uses of technology (particularly interactive features). For more on this, please refer to the
institutional level report.
4.2 Lessons Learnt
1. Departments may be concerned about the cost of lecture capture systems being higher than
they are.
2. The main beneficiaries of recorded lectures are students who view the recordings for
revision purposes.
3. Students want extra tools to support their learning, but not any that will result in an
increased work load for them.
4. When well set up (e.g. using the remote scheduler) the system requires no input from
lecturers. Although the pilot project has carried all costs, the future service will be based on
a cost sharing model with contributions of time, support and finances required from
departments or divisions.
5. Even when well set up the system may occasionally fail, which, while perhaps unnoticed at
the time of recording, can result in lectures not being recorded.
6. Some departments may be resistant to lecture capture technology if they fear expectations
that it should alter their teaching styles and/or course structure.
4.3 Recommendations
1. When encouraging lecturers to adopt the system, it would be beneficial to point out how
students (and especially the weaker ones) can benefit greatly from listening to recorded
7
lectures; and emphasise that it will require no effort or cost on the part of the lecturer. (This
last point depends on the extent and effectiveness of local AV and IT support, once the
central pilot project terminates.)
2. It may be worth demonstrating to lecturers and other departmental stakeholders that the
University’s choice of solution will be cost effective, compared to what departments may be
able to provide independently.
3. Emphasise to departments that the use of lecture capture does not necessitate change, but,
rather, it supports existing teaching methods and facilitates desired improvements in the
type and extent of learning support provided to students.
8