Meet KentPlayerThe University’s Lecture Recording

and Educational Media Service

Meet KentPlayer•2012/13 Pilot review•Research Project – Attendance & Performance• Introducing KentPlayer

2012/13 PilotA review

The Pilot• Academic year 2012/13• Easy-to-use software and quality hardware• Self-Initiated recordings• Evaluative pilot participants & “self-serve” users• September: 30 Canterbury & 7 Medway teaching rooms equipped• January: 130 additional rooms in Canterbury

Usage• 84 Total modules• 656 Total hours recorded•Different types of recording:• Lecture recording• Software demonstrations• Exam preparation• Student presentations

•More than 2000 students viewed recordings• Recordings used heavily for revision purposes• Students are viewing last year’s recordings to prepare for the coming year

Usage

Sep 1

2Nov

12Jan

13Mar

13

May 13

Jul 13

Sep 1

30

10002000300040005000600070008000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

30002,602

191ViewsUsersHrs Viewed

Usage – Top 5 Modules

ModuleView

s

Hours Viewe

d

Unique

Users

LW597: The Law of Obligations 11215 5486 384

LW599: Land Law 10272 4955 385

MA321: Calculus and Mathematical Modelling 3256 958 209

SO602: Social Research Methods 792 305 212

HI419: England in the Age of Chivalry: c1200-1400 356 233 51

Student feedbackStudents felt that recordings… •made their learning experience more positive overall (90% Agree or Strongly Agree)•made it easier to learn (89% Agree or Strongly Agree)• helped them achieve better results (83% Agree or Strongly Agree)

Student feedback“A brilliant innovation - please PLEASE extend it

to all lectures! I use it frequently to aid my understanding of the subject.”

“I am a mature student and [have] lectures at 9am when I have two children to get ready

before I travel an hour to get to Canterbury…Lecture recordings are invaluable to me.”

Student feedback“the positive effects for students are

paramount…I feel lucky to be a student at the University of Kent.”

“I found the lecture recordings extremely useful when revising for the exam.”

“This has revolutionised my learning.”

Research Project

Does the availability of lecture recordings affect attendance or academic performance?

Literature Review - Attendance• Students make qualitative decisions about attendance (Billings-Gagliardi & Mazor, 2007)• Self-reported data:• 10% stopped attending entirely and 55% lower attendance

(Owston et al, 2011)• No difference in attendance (Toppin, 2010)• 12% - would increase their likelihood of absence; 31% -

would depend on the course (Copley, 2007)• 39% of students attended lectures only half the time or

rarely (Gosper et al, 2010) – not comparative•Observational data:• 5% lower attendance (n.s.) (Brotherton & Abowd, 2004)• 9% lower attendance (p<0.01) (Traphagan, Kucsera &

Kishi, 2010)

Literature Review - Performance•Data analysis• No statistically significant difference in performance• Students who were selective in their use of the recordings, and

watched only individual sections only once, were more successful than those who watched the whole recording and/or individual sections multiple times (Owston et al, 2011)• Usage had a positive and significant effect on two of the

assessments within the module (Traphagan et al, 2010)• Student Opinion• 67% of students felt lecture capture had helped them to

achieve significantly or moderately better results (Gosper et al, 2010)• 43% felt that recordings enhanced their performance (Euzent

et al, 2011)• students felt that recordings improved exam performance

(Legum et al, 2010)

Methodology• Three core modules• Architecture (Stage 1, 14o students)• Mathematics (Stage 2, 180 students)• Physics (Foundation, 46 students)

•Data sources• Usage logs from Panopto• Attendance, Achievement & Demographic data from SDS

• Limitations• Attendance compulsory• Attendance not always recorded• No data on part of recording viewed• No baseline data on attendance or achievement• No linked qualitative data

Results•Architecture• 24% higher median attendance (p<0.001)• 7% higher marks (n.s.)

•Mathematics• 11% lower median attendance (p<0.001)*• 9% higher marks (p<0.001)

•Physics• 6% lower median attendance (p<0.01)• 10% higher marks (n.s.)

Results – Maths Year-on-Year

13 14 15 1617 18 1920 21 22 23240%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

f(x) = − 0.0107934414498802 x + 0.69778677222968R² = 0.0795847184598533

f(x) = − 0.0295332146076087 x + 0.904263433693478R² = 0.543948962760693

20132013 Trend20122012 Trend

Week

% A

tten

danc

e

Conclusions• Implications• Ineffective methodology• Lecture capture ‘does no harm’

•Future research• Repeat study with different methodology•Data Salvaging techniques (Moran et al, 1997)•Map learning outcomes

Introducing KentPlayer

The Software• Pre-installed on presenter PCs• Available for download for local use on PC & Mac• Easily installed on any managed or unmanaged desktop• Records…• Computer Screen• Presentations• Presenter Audio• Presenter Video (optional)• Other secondary sources (USB video)

1

2

3

4

5

Recording Software

The Service• Is not mandatory• Access & consent controlled via Moodle• Recordings automatically uploaded, processed and published• “creators” can edit (online) and manage recordings• “viewers” can view recordings in multiple formats, and subscribe to podcast versions

Current slide

Thumbnails

Presenter Video*

Navigation

Playback Controls

Content tabs

Tools

Access & Playback

Retention Policy•Moodle-linked content will be retained for two academic years• E.g. 2012/13 content deleted in September 2014

•Users will be notified• You may retain recordings for later use by moving/copying into your private folder

Scheduled Recordings Pilot• Automated recording• Presenter Audio• Computer screen (inc. PowerPoint)

• Limited pilot (20-30 modules)• First 5 volunteers guaranteed a place!

• Participant feedback on success of capture• Student feedback on comparative quality of capture•Making case for timetable integration

Get involvedSign up for a training

sessionhttp://bit.ly/17vpO7a

Apply for the scheduled recordings

pilothttp://bit.ly/17vpxkz

References• Billings-Gagliardi, S. & Mazor, K.M., 2007. Student decisions about lecture

attendance: do electronic course materials matter? Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 82(10 Suppl), pp.S73–6. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17895696.

• Brotherton, J. & Abowd, G., 2004. Lessons learned from eClass: Assessing automated capture and access in the classroom. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human …, 11(2), pp.121–155. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1005362.

• Copley, J., 2007. Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus‐based students: production and evaluation of student use. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), pp.387–399. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14703290701602805.

• Euzent, P., Martin, T. & Moskal, P., 2011. Teaching Principles to the Masses: Assessing Student Performance in Lecture Capture vs. Face-to-Face Course Delivery. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1868945.

• Gosper, M. et al., 2010. Web‐based lecture technologies and learning and teaching: a study of change in four Australian universities. Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), pp.251–263. Available at: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/10768.

References• Legum, H. et al., 2010. Perceptions of a Lecture Capture System and Academic

Achievement among Online Graduate Students. The American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 14, pp.76–88.

• Moran, T., Palen, L., Harrison, S., Chiu, P., Kimber, D., Minneman, S., Van Melle, W., Zellweger, P. 1997. I’ll Get That off the Audio: A Case Study of Salvaging Multimedia Meeting Records. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘97), Atlanta, GA, March, 202–209.

• Owston, R., Lupshenyuk, D. & Wideman, H., 2011. Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: Student perceptions and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), pp.262–268. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1096751611000418.

• Toppin, I.N., 2010. Video lecture capture (VLC) system: A comparison of student versus faculty perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), pp.383–393. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10639-010-9140-x.

• Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. V. & Kishi, K., 2009. Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), pp.19–37. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11423-009-9128-7.