Improving The University of Michigan School of Public Health Rich Media Library

Rachael Dreyer Saurabh Koparkar

Ryan Lankton Adrienne Leo

Nathan Oostendorp

School of Public Health Library and Informatics   Lecture recording, processing, distribution   Process includes

  E-Learning Specialist and Student Assistants   Faculty Lecturers   Student Consumers

  Building a collection of lectures available online to SPH students: the Rich Media Library

Research into SPH-LI

  Interviewed 6 candidates including   E-learning specialist   2 of the student assistants   Founder of RML   Faculty lecturer   SPH Website Administrator

Vision for RML

  Repository of lectures from SPH courses   Available to on-campus students, and

On-Job-On-Campus (OJOC) executive education

  Well archived allowing for searching and organization

  Ability to revise, edit, keep up to date

Findings on Rich Media Library 1.  The existing RML is not maintained, difficult

to browse, and largely unused 2.  Workflow for lecture production follows

informal procedures and is constrained by tight timelines

3.  Training for many processes is based on prior experience, and relies solely on the E-learning Specialist’s personal expertise

Finding 1. Significant Issues with the Existing Rich Media Repository

  Have a repository intact with 165 lecture recordings available but not publicized or used

  Taxonomy used to catalog lectures is too simple—it’s organized by lecturer, course, keyword

  Interviewees expressed some concerns about intellectual property

  Contents are video/slideshow, lecture name, and 1-2 sentence description

  Have been using Ctools as replacement

MIT Lecture Browser

Recommendation 1: Post more information with lectures

  1a. Having transcripts of lectures would be ideal

  1b. Add original PowerPoint slides from faculty

  1c. Allow tagging and viewer comments on lectures

  1d. Make materials searchable

Recommendation 1e: Use a MediaWiki   Allows use of a robust and familiar software

package, expensive development not required   Makes tagging, searching, revision, and video

possible   Allows for collaboration/discussion by viewers   Benefits: lecture archive can be much more

effectively maintained and users can find relevant lectures more quickly

Finding 2: Lecture Processing Workflow   Numerous breakdowns in lecture processing

  Problems handing off equipment   Inadequate scheduling notice   Tight timelines between recording and release

  Processes are intact, but could be proceduralized

  E-learning specialist doles out work as needed, is central to entire process

Recommendation 2: Make the lab an “assembly line”

  2a. Post checklists for entire process   2b. Store tapes to be edited in queue by

deadline   2c. Standardize storage for tapes, and

indicate whether being actively edited   These steps make it obvious to

assistants what needs to be done next.

Rearrange the Lab to represent the Workflow

The Lab!

Examples of existing space that could be arranged to more clearly delineate workflow.

Finding 3: State of Student Assistant Training   Student assistants learn primarily through

experience   Must have prior expertise when hired   Fairly rapid turnover expected   Current Assistants have high value, when

they leave, it’s a substantial loss   E-learning Specialist personally responsible

for all training

Recommendation 3: Externalize and Formalize Training

3a. Institute shadowing of current students for new recruits

3b. Keep a FAQ where students can accumulate institutional memory

3c. Increase lab-wall instructions:

3d. Hire an Audio-Video Specialist

Acknowledgements

  We’d like to thank our interviewees, the School of Public Health, and most of all, the E-Learning Specialist.

  This was a fascinating project. We hope that you find this information useful.