How to move beyond lecture capture: Technology guide is one of the early outputs of the REC:all project and has been developed and is released in draft form to engage and stimulate discussion. It will be augmented with this feedback and new available information, the document will be released in a final format in the summer of 2013.
Please feel free to post your comments here or e-mail them to firstname.lastname@example.org
You can also direct a message to the author: Mathy Vanbuel
Just reading through the pdf, taking note of the title; How to move BEYOND lecture capture. I'm trying to come to terms with the idea that one should capture every lecture, especially in a time where students will watch programmes so long as they have decent/modern production values. And please take for granted I've been watching this evolution for the past 30 years, inside and outside the classroom.
There's no mention of the fact that relationships are developing/evolving between broadcasters and unis. e.g. BBC and UKOU. So the idea of having one excellent programme about a subject (rather than teachers - good and bad- sticking a few slides together) and flipping it via broadcast TV, so that students watch it for (say) homework, is quite common.
Then, they either come into a classroom or participate online. It's not a big change. This is the way things are going if one thinks from the perspective of students and not teachers. The big problem is that teachers simply break with their old routines. e.g.This was done well. But like always the questions which were thrown up by attendees and non attendees never get answered because teachers can't stick to the same domain, and build an audience/class. Habitually, a report must be presented to a funder.
From a media perspective, the opportunity to become self sustaining is always lost because fundees want to teach technology and not influence social change by using technology to create utility.
Even if one goes down this classroom-bound LC path, it makes little sense for each institution to go their own way in choosing a commodity product. That's negotiating which should logically be negotiated with suppliers at (at least) a national network level, as Dorte suggests on page 19.
Regardless, Good report. I understand it's hard to change social routines, especially in an industry whose customers are forced to have an education "delivered". But we should note that outside the classroom, lots of other social mores are being flipped. The main one is including the funders in the constant learning. all the best.
Thanks for your comments on the technical guide, which is of course a draft and we are of course very happy to take into account all comments, yours and others’, that we receive during the year.
There are many points in your post that strike a note: the fact that production value is important, now even more than ever because of the high competition for eyeballs and attention, and because (and this may seem somewhat contradictory) there are no longer any thresholds or barriers, not even cost, to get access to production technology of high standard.
Good point about relationships between Uni and broadcasters although I must say that I don‘t find too much evidence specifically in this area of LC, other than expressions of interest or intention. I do see indeed the increasing availability of excellent media resources from all open or less open resources (public broadcasters e.g. in EUscreen, or archives in OpenCulture etc.) and increasing take up of these as teaching and learning materials. If you have other examples that are relevant for lecture capturing specifically please let us know, we will be happy to include in future versions. However, I see this mainly as an OER issue, but of course I agree with you that rich media are an essential part of OER that benefits to both informal and informal education.
With regard to sustainability, I would be a little less sceptical then you, I do however think that dominant models evolve independently from funding, I am as curious as you to see what will evolve from the present offer of standard as well as non-standard learning technologies, also in the field of LC. And then dominant models don’t mean single products: I understand Dorte Olesen’s point but I recall what happened in the VLE market, even today I keep stumbling upon new proprietary solutions, DIY and other. I really do not see how this can be avoided and I am not even sure whether it should be avoided. There is a richness in this “competition” even if it is a non-commercial competition to feed ongoing development (see also e.g. Sakai vs Moodle).
Thanks for your comments, we will take them with us and hope to answer them also in the next version or in the other guides that accompany this one, for those issues that relate more to policy, implementation and education. And thanks for reminding us that funders have to stay in the loop, we will keep them involved and challenged.
Let's go through this methodically. The global Uni consortia/National broadcaster tie up is just one illustration of the (evolution in a) principle - that we're seeing some alignment between producers of (education)materials (in this case) for broadcast, and the introduction of new channels by national broadcasters; each of which tries to tune channels for individual audiences. You might ask what NPO and others in Europe are doing to fulfil their role in "(serving the education needs of) the whole of society".
The hard part of this alignment between the two network types - broadcast & interactive (social) - is that, even though each National broadcaster seems to have something like this programme, the moderation of the learning (the interactive space) has not yet achieved an innovative artform. But at least we can point to its beginnings. Language problems aside, the other limitation is that while we have National broadcasters beaming similar programmes to their National audiences, "the audiences" are coming together on www. (global) platforms like LinkedIn & Google groups to share common interests.
Re: the tools, particularly one size fitting all, are infinite. So far as LC is concerned, as just one small subset of the 'video' market, we have rarely got to the point where the comms guys are considering what happens (e.g.) during, and after, a Video Conference. i.e. streaming, recording, and keeping a record of an ongoing enquiry. The discussion on the real time challenges usually revolve around "interoperability" between products. You can check out these technical discussions over on the VaaS LinkedIn (locked) group.
But in this convergence between what 2 groups of techs = one comms centric, one media centic = are doing, perhaps the only supplier who's made it to the "ah ha" stage is vidyo. i.e. Focussed on the two "markets".
Lastly, Re: sustainablity (cause I want to see what you're doing sustained over the 'Horizon 2020'). It's no secret that no one funder is immune to a silo mentality in the www world. The joke(/xn/detail/6457263Video13459/index.css) is that if groups who offer funding, in a particular area of (global) research, had the right learning tools, then they wouldn't have the necessity to fund them. Conversely, we're starting to see some approaches like this, in gathering experts who can define a global research challenge.
Just limiting this inspection, of media & learning, to your funder's media silo. We have their broadcasters pumping out their (unwatched) programmes, and lots of instances of developing interactive spaces littering the domain. By the time I read of blog entry from you, about what M&L/Rec-all is doing, in this domain, I'll know that half the challenge is over :) All the best.
A comment to "I'm trying to come to terms with the idea that one should capture every lecture, especially in a time where students will watch programmes so long as they have decent/modern production values."
I definitely think that one should NOT capture every lecture, every year. In fact, that is not specific, do universities record their lectures (same lectures) every year over again? Not very useful. Better capture one lecture in a good way (High production value) and that can be used as background information for students to consult for several years.
Hi Maarten, I get your point: better produce once and with good production value than every year or every time anew. However, the latter has its advantages as well: learning content changes, lecturers want to give another accent or perspective, they get better in lecturing, they want to avoid that it becomes routine for themselves or their students... As a result there are institutions that ask the lecturers to record everytime again for new their classroom lecture. Is that also not fair to the students? It certainly is when the lecture capture is used as an electronic note taking (why not?) Look at Daniel Tan's earlier webinar on lecture capture practise in Singapore, a great example imo. Also VideoLab in KULeuven builds on a similar principle be it less strict on the lecturers. Production quality and usability remain equally important, but production value is sacrificed for scale and sustainability, and that may indeed be difficult to accept for professional media producers.
Thanks for your comments. If lecture capture is to serve as electronic note-taking, then yes, capture it every time I guess. Some lecture content and lecturers change, so yes, that would be reason to change.
So, I guess there are advantages to both approaches. Perhaps it is possible to create some sort of automation process that implements some higher production level elements? Not sure how though. Perhaps one can think of a system that record the moments that a speaker changes slides and points to a slide in combination with a two camera system (one of the cameras films the whole screen). In that way, with some to-be-build-plugin, the editing system could automatically edit in the visual of the slide when the speaker changes it or points on it....
speaker can "control the edit" when she/he changes slides and/or points to the slide. But it would require new technology to be developed and implemented, even though it might not be too complex too do.
Hi Maarten, if you look at what the lecture capture technology providers are offering on the market, both commercial and non-commercial (eg OSS Matterhorn or many of the in-house university built systems), you will be surprised at the high amount of automatisation of the workflow they provide, including automatic tagging and editing functionalities. When you look at it from a traditional media production point of view, it seems sometimes rather basic, but they do approach this from a different angle, just like the users of the media that are produced by these systems.
OK. Good to know. Thanks!
Could anyone please advise if this document was ever finalised? The matrix mentioned at the end would be really, really useful please? Does anything exist like this elsewhere? Thanks, Tim.
Currenlty we are working on getting them all finalised, and very soon you can expect them to be published on this website. thanks for your interest!
That's great! Thank you. I will look out for the new draft.
Best wishes, Tim.
Just one note, while I'm reading that exchange between Maarten and Mathy.
We can see the old and new approach. The old says record everything, as it's an adjunct to the physical classroom. The new says produce once (preferably co-produced by a number of teachers from different unis/schools), and get the production values up. The latter conforms to the idea of a flipped classroom or conference. N.B. The old approach is neither sustainable nor inclusive.
So the question then is where does one keep the archive? of course or series of conferences. If it's the old approach, we will have the videos compiles on a videolectures-type site, where one must usually compile their own materials, unrelated to the discussions which may be going on, and on in many other VL-type sites. It reinforces the idea of one prof delivering a lecture, and every uni/NREN duplicating what each is doing (with different tools).
Alternatively, the co-production approach means having a compilation site, where profs, and students, can re-edit shared materials (if they are provided with shared, easy to use tools). The change, again, is from delivery to learning by doing.
BTW. Re: relationships between unis and broadcasters. The BBC and OUUK have had a relationship since TV was invented. I remember one series of science programs on the box, in Australia/NZ/UK when i was a little boy. (And I have noticed a few series in different Euro & Asian countries during my travels). So what goes around is coming around again. N.B. The BBC/OUUK history of Britain co-productions.
One more interesting thing, as we're starting to see the conflation of edu and gov networks now, bought about primarily by the cloud network model. (There have been a few interesting discussions down on the Educause LinkedIn site about using FB groups and other social networks as a VLE.) The features which have been associated with a VLE are pretty much as any teacher, who wants to keep the old workflow, wants. The interesting thing is to hear of how many teachers are being invited to join "their" students' groups. And they're linking from those discussions to videos, and others formatted materials.