university of manchester notes of lunch meeting of ......page 1 university of manchester notes of...

University of Manchester Notes of lunch meeting of Teaching Excellence Network, 13 June 2013

Present: Clive Agnew, Ralf Becker, Becki Bennett, Marion Birch, Kersti Börjars, Mark Brown, Grant Campbell, Geoff Carter, Sarah Collins, Anna Goatman, Peter Green, Sarah Heath, Annie Morton, Adam Ozanne, Leena Patel, Simon Perry, Véronique Pin-Fat, Elena Polisca, Ray Richmond, Christine Rogers, Geoff Rubner, Andrew Russell, Joyce Tyldesley

1. Introduction

Prof Agnew thanked colleagues for attending and explained that his presentation and the related discussion would cover ambitions for teaching excellence, the strategic plan, and priorities for 2013-14. He also noted that there would be opportunity to colleagues to feed in their thoughts, concerns, and suggestions for taking forward the teaching excellence agenda.

2. Social responsibility, income and applications

The Chair reported that:

• there was a need to reflect social responsibility in the learning experience, although this might best be done through non-credit rated ‘days of action’ rather than explicit embedding in curricula. The University was ‘ahead of the game’ with this agenda;

• the University was ‘a victim of its own success’ because its ability to recruit students from what were previously considered Low Participation Neighbourhoods had led to the reclassification of LPNs, and the University’s performance in recruiting students from the revised LPN areas had been weaker;

• between 2007 and 2012 the University had increased total tuition fee income by 55%, international FT fee income by 83%, total student numbers by 13% and overseas numbers by 46%;

• between 2012 and 2018 the University aimed to increase total numbers by 3% and overseas numbers by 11%;

• as at 2012, the University had the highest Russell Group UG application numbers and the second-highest conversion rate;

• there would also be a drive to continue increasing part-time and distance learning numbers through concentration on growth areas and strong markets (e.g. MBS, EPS stem subjects) and merged subject areas and collaborations;

• the University would be looking to promote a ‘blended learning’ approach with its overseas partners, not to set up overseas campuses;

• the University was committed to delivering MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), primarily as a branding exercise.

The group recognised the danger that the UK flavour of the learning experience offered by Manchester might be compromised if the proportion of overseas students was too high. It was noted that in one programme overseas students accounted for approximately 200 of

1

the total of 288 students, and that overseas students had already commented on this as an issue.

3. Student surveys

CA reported that:

• the levels of student satisfaction recorded in the most recent National Student Survey and Unit Survey exercises had increased although there was still room for improvement;

• the Unit Survey response rates had increased but were still disappointing. For the paper version the response rate was 40%, for the online version it was 25% (overall = 32%). The University was resistant to making it compulsory for students to complete the Survey but was instead looking at ways to encourage students to participate.

The group commented that some colleagues had been successful in encouraging students to complete the Unit Survey by dedicating time to the activity in lectures or awarding printing credits. It was also noted that online completion of the form would be facilitated by better Wi-Fi coverage on campus, particularly in teaching areas, and if the format of the Survey was adapted to facilitate the use of iPads and mobile devices for the purpose. Colleagues also felt that students would be more likely to give feedback if they felt that it would be acted upon, and the importance of ‘closing the feedback loop’ was therefore emphasised. The group commented that there was a danger of students who had been compelled to complete the survey of giving less positive feedback than they might have otherwise done. It was also noted that it was just as important to educate staff about supporting the Survey, and particularly to embrace the online version and the underlying technology, which facilitated a quicker turnaround time for the return of feedback to students. The use of ‘Evaluation Kit’ was mentioned. Timing of requests for feedback was also considered important. It was noted that if students were approached after they had received their results they would be in a better position to appreciate how much they had learned, and the techniques involved.

4. Graduate Employability

CA reported that:

• the University’s current figure of 72% graduates in positive destinations was likely to fall due to a change in criteria;

• the percentage of graduating students continuing to postgraduate study at Manchester was disappointing, and the lowest in the Russell Group;

• research that had been undertaken with 2012 graduates had demonstrated that it was important to develop a framework to promote perseverance, resilience, and the ability in graduates to expand and explore potential;

2

• the research had also shown that students tended not to want to commit to long-term careers at the outset, but rather take a series of smaller ‘steps’ towards their long-term career goal, or travel or do other things before entering the job market;

• the exercise had also shown that most students did not think that there were enough jobs on the market, and that they did not expect to secure a position in the discipline in which they had studied. This led to the perception in certain areas that there were no job opportunities, and this was perpetuated amongst the student population.

5. MyManchester Essentials

The proposal for a programme of self-evaluation, tools and support for student progression and achievement was discussed. It was emphasised that such a system should be easily navigable. It was also noted that it would be helpful if the MyStudent portal in the MWE could be used to provide Academic Advisers with information (including photos) relating to their students, and that it could be a powerful proactive tool to identify, then help support, failing students in a timely and proactive fashion. It was agreed that Professor Reece should be made aware of this request.

6. Blackboard and Campus Solutions

There was general agreement that IT at the University appeared to constrain teaching and learning rather than enable it, and that the University should be in a position to specify a set of requirements for its IT teams to deliver against, rather than working within predefined boundaries from the outset. The possibility of setting up working groups to consider such issues was raised, and it was noted that this had been in the remit of the Manchester Working Environment initiative. It was noted that Campus Solutions functionality should reflect the practicalities of programme study (e.g. it should prohibit students from registering for 120 credits all in the first semester). It was also considered difficult for PSS staff in Schools to liaise with centrally-based colleagues to obtain meaningful locally-based data that were stored in the system (i.e. from the data warehouse). The suggestion was therefore made that either staff in Schools should be trained/given permission to obtain such data themselves, or that staff who were currently centrally based be relocated around Schools to provide local expertise. Blackboard roles were considered to be highly restrictive, and the system itself was considered increasingly complex and to have ‘moved away from its customer base’. It was noted that students would appreciate more flexible access to Blackboard to investigate future courses and revise and research past ones, and that some students had reproduced their Virtual Learning Environment on DVD and iBooks as a means for them and others in their cohort to view historical material. It was noted that PASS Leaders could not be given access to their students’ Blackboard material because they did not have enrolled student status. Colleagues also expressed frustration at the difficulties being encountered in

3

providing External Examiners with access to Blackboard, particularly when other institutions had granted such permissions. It was further noted that tutor notes could not be entered into Blackboard. It was felt that a re-evaluation of whether Blackboard was still the most appropriate tool for the University would be welcomed, along with consideration of the development of an ‘in-house’ system. The ‘iPad Lift-off Scheme’ was cited as way of grading work and providing feedback quickly and effectively.

7. Learning Spaces

CA noted that priority was being given to meeting student expectations of their learning environment, and quoted the Alan Gilbert Learning Commons, the recently refurbished Renold Building, and the current refurbishment of the Simon Building as examples of this. It was noted that collaborative learning was high on the agenda and that flexible use of teaching space was essential to achieving this. University groups such as TLG and the Timetabling and Shared Learning Spaces Group were forums at which such issues could be discussed.

8. Lecture Capture

The introduction of the automatic lecture capture system across campus was cited as providing an invaluable tool for students who struggled, although it was emphasised that it did not provide an alternative to attending lectures. However, it was noted that the stability of the scheme was essential. It was noted that a paper had been taken to Senate that gave details of the roll-out of the scheme into the various teaching rooms, and it was agreed that this paper be circulated to colleagues. It was also noted that a technician appeared not to have been assigned to cover rooms on the North Campus to deal with any issues. Concern was expressed by some colleagues about the effectiveness of the communication channels that had been used to disseminate information about the lecture capture exercise. Despite it having been discussed at various University forums during the last 18 months it appeared that some colleagues had only become aware of it recently and had not felt able to feed back into the consultation exercise before final decisions had been taken. There was a request for Senate to consider having the system as opt-in (rather than opt-out) for a further year to allow colleagues the opportunity to get used to it and identify any potential issues. However, CA confirmed that the paper on the recording of lectures had been placed on the Senate agenda and that discussion based on the content as presented (i.e. for an opt-out system) could not be deferred. It was noted that the recent staff survey had shown that staff at the University considered the institution to be relatively weak at managing change, and some considered the introduction of lecture capture to be an example of this. Concern was also expressed that it

4

was an example of an activity that was perceived as good practice, and that the accompanying message was that it ‘should be done as much as possible’, without any consideration of whether this was true or applicable in all cases. A concern was raised that the quality of lectures uploaded online had not been assured, i.e. by peer review, and that the standard was therefore variable. It was also noted that the quality of material submitted by members of the University to online resources such as iTunes U was not being reviewed, and was potentially inconsistent.

9. Parity of Esteem

Some colleagues felt that teaching was still not valued or rewarded at School level and that there was therefore no incentive to do well. Prof Börjars responded by summarising the work of the Parity of Esteem Working Group and the five open meetings that were being arranged by way of consulting about its findings and recommendations.

10. Next steps

A further meeting of the Teaching Excellence Network has been scheduled for Thursday, 24 October, and will be held in the Council Chamber, Whitworth Building, between 12pm and 2pm. The group will be asked to prioritise the agenda (parity of esteem and management of change were suggested as possible topics) and it was agreed that part of the discussion would be an update from Prof Agnew on progress made in the consideration of the points made at this meeting.

Appendices

1. Professor Agnew’s presentation slides from 13 June meeting (page 6).

2. Senate paper on lecture capture (page 26).

5

Teaching Excellence Lunch

Ambitions for Teaching Excellence Strategic Plan

Priorities for 2013/14 Feedback and Discussion

Professor Clive Agnew Vice-President for Teaching, Learning & Students

6

2020 Strategic Plan

Goal One: World-Class Research. The University

will be one of the top 25 research universities in the world,

where internationally-leading researchers produce research

of the highest significance and impact. We will be

recognised for our interdisciplinary research, for training

outstanding researchers and giving parity of esteem to

discovery, application knowledge transfer and impact.

Goal Two: Outstanding Learning and Student Experience The University will provide a superb higher

education and learning experience to outstanding students,

irrespective of their backgrounds, and will produce

graduates distinguished by their intellectual capabilities,

employability, leadership qualities, and their ability and

ambition to contribute to society.

Goal Three: Social Responsibility. The University

will contribute to the social and economic success of the

local, national and international community by using our

expertise and knowledge to find solutions to the major

challenges of the 21st century, and by producing graduates

who exercise social leadership and responsibility.

7

Goal Three: Social Responsibility (AVP-Prof. Aneez Esmail, Julian Skyrme)

KPI 8 Social responsibility Target: a weighted portfolio of measures to monitor progress against the social responsibility agenda, including equality and diversity profile, engagement with communities (especially those that are disadvantaged), sustainability, and economic and social impact.

8

4

2007-2012 • Total tuition fee increased 55% • International FT Fee income increases 83% • Total student numbers increased by 13% • Overseas students increased by 46% • Part time students additional 7,000 (mostly DL-

MBSw income increased £6m to £16m)

2012-2018 • Total Numbers increase by 3% • Overseas increase by 11% • Distance Learning/part time growth

Strong recruitment and tuition fee income generation

9

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Applications Accepted Applicants

UCAS UGT 2012 end of cycle

Highest RG application and recruitment of undergraduate students

10

Largest Student body of the Russell Group

6

Russell Group Students 2011/12 FTEs

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000 PGR-O

PGR-H

PGT-O

PGT-H

UGT-O

UGT-H

11

Growth in International Students

7

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

10000

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Overseas students Overseas %

12

Global international recruitment of students

8

China, 33%

Malaysia, 8%

India, 7% Nigeria, 4% HK, 4%

Singapore, 4%

other, 41%

• Over 30 countries provide at least 1% of international students

• Over 14 counties provide at least 100 students, including Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, S.Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, USA, Canada

13

Tuition Fee Income

9 0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

£mill

ion

Research training Other teaching Short courses PT students FT International FT Home/EU

14

• Entry rates for students from disadvantaged backgrounds rising 2004-2012

• Mature student acceptances declining -9.2% 2011 to 2012 • UGT part time 41% decline 2010 to 2012 • PGT part time 27% decline 2010 to 2012

75

80

85

90

95

100

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Per

cent

age

of 2

009

pop

ulat

ion

UK 18 year old cohort using 2009 as baseline (data from ONS )

15

Quality of people

Outstanding student

experience

Quality of environment

Quality of graduates

Impacts of graduates

2020 Strategic Plan for TL&S GOAL 2: Higher Education

Vision: The University will provide a superb higher education and

learning experience to outstanding students, irrespective of their

backgrounds, and will produce graduates distinguished by their

intellectual capabilities, employability, leadership qualities, and their

ability and ambition to contribute to society.

KPI 7 - WP

KPI 5 - NSS KPI 6 - DLHE

16

KPI 5 Target: To exceed NSS benchmark (84%, now 86%) followed by annual improvements of at least 2% each year to be in the top quartile of Russell Group institutions before 2020

17

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

% s

atis

fact

ion

NSS 2012 UoM Summary responses

UoM 2012 UoM 2011

18

Graduate Employability: Data on Positive Destinations 2010-11 HESA data published

2011-12 Target 2012-

13 Target 2019-

20

Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences 2011-12 Target 2012-

13 Target 2019-

20

School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science 87.5 89 92

School of Chemistry 74.8 78 85

School of Computer Science 74.1 80 90

School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences 79.7 83 90

School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering 85.7 86 90

School of Materials 63.6 70 80

School of Mathematics 71.6 73 77

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering 81.9 83 90

School of Physics and Astronomy 76.1 77 85

Manchester Business School 66.8 69 85

School of Arts, Language and Cultures 58.2 64 75

School of Education 48.5 65 70

School of Environment and Development 62.6 65 70

School of Law 74.2 75 80

School of Social Sciences 68.6 71 85

School of Life Sciences 73.3 75 80

School of Dentistry 100.0 95 95

School of Medicine 100.0 95 95

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work 95.2 95 95

School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science 98.1 95 90

School of Psychological Science 62.1 65 70

University Grand Total 72.1 73.4 85.3

2020 Target 85.0

19

91% of UoM UK graduates from first degrees are in

employment and/or in further study at six months after graduation. (HEFCE)

Compares favourably with Russell Group, eg: Imperial 91.7%; Cambridge 91.6%; Manchester 91.0%; Oxford 90.4%; Warwick 89.7% Sample of companies employing our 2010/11 graduates: Sample job titles (2010/11 graduates): Accountant; Actuary; Aerospace Engineer; Business Development Manager; Data Analyst; Electrical Engineer; Geologist; Investment Analyst; IT Consultant; Management Consultant; Market Researcher; Nuclear Engineer, Pharmacist; Product and Marketing Executive; Quality Assurance Officer; Technical Management Trainee

20

Investments and Achievements 2011-13

• NSS-SEAPs • Welcome week • Project Diamond (academic staff) • Estates- Alan Gilbert Learning Commons • Lecture capture • Wifi • Mobile learning • Student portal • Student Charter • Regulations Review • HEFCE KIS data • Distance learning and MOOCs • My Manchester Essentials (employabilty)

21

MyManchester Essentials to provide a programme of self-evaluation, tools and support for student progression and achievement

• MyLearning • MyWellbeing • MyEmployability

MyEmployability 1. Embedding empl;oyability in the curriculum (audit) 2. Work experience and internships 3. Engaging with students(skills, knowledge,

attributes) • Competency framework (diagnostic tools) • Online resources • Support

22

Employability

Broaden and Build

your Network

Enthusiasm, Drive and Persistence

Communic’g and

Influencing Exploration and Stretch

Recognis’g Reflecting

on your Skills

Competency framework (online tool)

UUK/CBI employability skills

• Self-management • Teamworking • Business and

customer awareness. • Problem solving • Communication and

Literacy • Application of

numeracy • Application of

information technology

23

Following APRs 2012 the following 5 operational priorities have been identified • Increasing research income • Improving student experience • Meeting student recruitment targets • Developing Estates Master Plan • Deliver People Strategy

24

Possible Priorities for 2013/14 Uni- Student satisfaction Uni-Student recruitment Teaching and Research Teaching Sabbaticals Project charter/Attendance monitoring MyEssentials My student (academic advising) Employability Retention and success Data analysis/management information Volunteering/social responsibility IT..?? And more

25

- 1 -

Lecture Capture at The University of Manchester 1. Background The recording of group-based teaching and learning activities (e.g., lectures, tutorials) can provide a useful resource for students and can be used to, amongst other things:

• provide a study-aid for review and revision1; • help accommodate different learning styles2; • assist students who do not have English as their first language3; and • assist students who have particular educational needs

The University has produced several guidance documents aimed at staff4, students5 and, specifically, disabled students6 to outline its position on the provision and distribution of recordings of teaching and learning activities. Initially, this guidance was aimed at providing support for students with disabilities. The Equality Act (2010)7 provides that the University must not treat disabled students less favourably than non-disabled students, and to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that this does not happen. With respect to the recording of teaching and learning activities, it is a commonly accepted reasonable adjustment across the sector to allow disabled students to record lectures for their own use. Moreover, if a student disability means that they are unable to attend a lecture, then it is considered reasonable that the lecture be recorded on their behalf. 2. Lecture capture in Manchester During the 2011/12 academic year, a project to investigate the use of highly automated lecture recording systems was launched. The goal of the project was to investigate if academics would engage with such a system, if students would then make use of the recordings (widely referred to as podcasts) and if there would be any preference for the wider rollout of lecture capture technologies. As a pilot, several limitations were placed on the recording service. For example, only ~5,000 students would have access to the system and the equipment to enable lecture capture would only be installed in 10 centrally managed lecture theatres (see Appendix A). The system operated in an opt-in format. That is, academic staff teaching on a unit needed to indicate that they would be willing to have their teaching sessions recorded. Based on a variety of factors, including user preference feedback, ease of legislative compliance and a desire to reduce processing complexity, each podcast was produced as a simple recording of the output from the theatre projector and an accompanying audio track -

1 M’Hammed, A., Facer B. R. and Yen, C. (2012). Academic effectiveness of podcasting: A comparative study of integrated versus supplemental use of podcasting in second language classes. Comput. Educ., 58:43-52. Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Comput. Educ., 50:491-498. Mostyn, A., Jenkinson, C. M., McComick, D., Meade, O. and Lymn, J. S. (2013). An exploration of student experiences of using biology podcasts in nursing training. BMC Med. Educ., 13:12 2 Balfour, J.A.D. (2006). Audio recordings of lectures as an e-learning resource, Built Environment Education Annual Conference (BEECON 2006), 12-16 September 2006, London, UK. http://cebe.cardiff.ac.uk/news/events/beecon2006/pdf/P24_Jim_Balfour.pdf [accessed 19 March 2013] 3 Shaw, G.P. and Molnar, D. (2011). Non-native english language speakers benefit most from the use of lecture capture in medical school. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 39:416-420. 4 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=11994 5 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=11995 6 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=8273 7 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

26

- 2 -

there was no camera recordings of the teaching environment. The recordings themselves were timetable-driven. Recordings began on the hour and finished at five minutes to the hour. Recordings were normally made available to students within an hour of the teaching and learning session being completed, and students accessed them through a special password-protected link that allowed them to download a lecture and then watch it on mobile phones (Fig. 1), tablets and standard desktops or laptops.

Figure 1. A mobile phone playing a podcast generated from lecture capture.

2. Outcomes of the pilot A key success of the system was creating a new service that allowed any member of academic staff to generate high-quality lecture recordings without technical know-how. The system required no training to operate, and there are no buttons to press. Staff simply taught as they did before and an unseen network of servers handled the technically complex tasks. 2.1 Use The simplicity of the lecture capture system resulted in approximately 750 hours of lecture recordings being produced in its first year of operation, with teaching staff describing the system very positively saying, "it just works". The level of use from the ~5,000 student users was surprising. During the two semesters that the pilot ran, over 163,000 individual podcasts were downloaded, with substantial activity around revision periods (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Lecture Recording Data Downloads per Day

A. Regular mid-week download peaks B. Trough on the last Saturday & Sunday of reading week C. End of Semester 1 teaching D. Christmas day E. Semester 1 examinations finish F. End-of-year revision period G. Semester 2 examinations finish

27

- 3 -

2.2 User feedback A survey of students who benefited from the lecture capture pilot (588 responses) showed that 91% believed they would achieve better examination results after having used the lecture recordings, 94% would like the service to be more widely available and 88% indicated that the availability of lecture capture increased their course unit satisfaction. Figure 3 represents the feedback from an end-of-unit survey exercise indicating students felt the lecture recordings (podcasts) were 'the best thing on Blackboard'. Figure 3. Responses from students in an end of unit survey addressing the question, "What is the best thing on Blackboard?"

2.3 Examination performance Whilst numerous factors influence examination performance of student cohorts from year-to-year, efforts were made during the lecture capture pilot project to assess the impact of the availability of lecture recordings on the examination performance of students. A unit was chosen for this which introduced lecture capture during the 2009/10 academic session and which had previously suffered from relatively low examination results in comparison to similar units within the same School. The availability of lecture recordings was the only significant teaching change made to this unit in the year. The teaching staff, the examination procedures and the material available on Blackboard were largely unaltered. As shown in Figure 4, the availability of podcasts produced a significant increase in the end of year examination results when lecture capture was used.

Figure 4. An increase in examination performance following the introduction of lecture capture.

2.4 Effect on attendance During the lecture capture pilot, student attendance at recorded activities was surveyed. Students, self-reporting, indicated as few as 6% missed at least one lecture knowing that the recording would be available. Teaching staff reported similar findings in that attendance was

28

- 4 -

not adversely affected by the introduction of lecture capture. Independently, an FEPS investigation into the use of different types of lecture-capture produced similar results8. Research from outside the University of Manchester reinforces these findings in that the use of lecture recording has either no noticeable effect on lecture attendance9 or that lecture attendance is not correlated with the use of lecture capture10. 2.5 Security of recordings Students registered on a unit where lecture recordings were produced accessed those recordings via a unique link that required them to authenticate using their standard University username and password. The nature of the recordings made (screen projection and audio only) was considered to reduce the risk of potentially embarrassing or inappropriate material being captured. However, a positive decision was made not to introduce further security (e.g., digital rights management (DRM) systems) to the recordings themselves. Rather, users were made aware that the misuse of recorded material, (including redistribution) would be considered misconduct as defined in Regulation XVII, the Conduct and Discipline of Students. 3. A new lecture capture service From the pilot, it was clear that an expansion of the system used for the pilot itself (Podcast Producer) was not sufficiently scalable to the level that would be able to support large-scale lecture capture for an institution the size of the University of Manchester. In 2012, a business case to increase the provision of lecture capture services was submitted and approved by the Information Systems Sub-Committee (ISSC) and the Planning and Resources Committee (PRC). The new system (Matterhorn) provides a service very similar to the pilot in terms of functionality, but will be available in many more locations. Work has now commenced on the project and will enable approximately 100 centrally managed teaching spaces (see Appendix 1) to be equipped for automated lecture capture. When the full service launches, at the end of August 2013, it will be one of the largest such systems in Europe. The pilot lecture capture system was defined at the outset as being based around opt-in - that is, teaching staff needed to indicate their willingness to be recorded before scheduled recordings took place. Perhaps as a consequence, lecture capture only occurred for a small fraction of the taught sessions that took place in the lecture theatres it was installed in (~ 10%). Experience from a variety of other institutions that have introduced lecture capture indicate that opt-in approaches seldom achieve greater than 10-15% of the available material being recorded. Opt-out policies, where the default position is that a teaching and learning activity in a lecture capture-enabled location will be recorded unless otherwise indicated, achieve far more. 4. Why is an opt-out policy required? An opt-out approach to lecture capture has the potential to have a transformative effect on the experience of students studying at the University of Manchester. Such a system would generate far more recordings that could be used by a much greater proportion of the student body than an opt-in system could achieve. Making as much of the University’s lecture

8 Saunders, F.C. and Hutt, I. (2012). Richness, responsiveness and relationship: Using rich media materials to enhance the teaching of core concepts. Innovation, Practice and Research in Engineering Education Conference, 18th-20th September 2012, Coventry, UK. Available from http://cede.lboro.ac.uk/ee2012/papers/ee2012_submission_125_rdp.pdf [accessed 19 March 2013] 9 Pilarski, P. P., Johnstone, D. A., Pettepher, C. C. and Osheroff, N. (2008). From music to macromolecules: Using rich media/podcast lecture recordings to enhance the preclinical educational experience. Med. Teach., 30:630-632. 10 Bollmeier, S.G., Wenger, P. J. and Forinash A. B. (2010). Impact of online lecture-capture on student outcomes in a therapeutics course. Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 74:127.

29

- 5 -

content available online as possible is an important part of the University’s eLearning Strategic Plan (approved by Senate in June 2012). Doing so will allow us to foster and develop blended and flexible learning styles. The lecture capture service at the University, that will be fully enabled by August 2013, will be capable of dealing with such large numbers in a cost effective manner if an opt-out approach is adopted. Whilst an opt-out policy is proposed here, it is recognise that the purpose of lecture recordings is not to alter what may already be excellent teaching practice. By no means all teaching and learning activities lend themselves to recording in the way that the capture system has been enacted and it is recognised that it may be inappropriate to record certain activities. Therefore, requests from teaching staff to opt-out of the automated recording process will be complied with, except in cases where the Disability Support Office (DSO) has determined that a reasonable adjustment for a student on a unit with a particular learning style is the availability of recorded teaching and learning sessions. Under the circumstances, the recordings made will only be available for those specifically identified students. 5. Consultation The policy document Senate is being asked to consider has been distributed to Schools and Faculties and a very large number of comments have been obtained through this consultation process. In addition, the rationale for the introduction of such a policy and the policy itself has been presented at, and endorsed by, the Teaching and Learning Group (TLG), the Online Education Strategy Group, the Disability Consultative Group and a number of Faculty Teaching and Learning Committees. It is probably not unfair to say that the policy has polarised opinion among individual staff. While many academics, especially those that have used the pilot system, were in favour of an opt-out lecture recording policy, many others are opposed. A number of the concerns raised against an opt-out policy for lecture recordings relate to legitimate issues with respect to pedagogical style. For example, if a particular, but nonetheless excellent or appropriate, teaching style does not lend itself toward recording in the format suggested, it is not the intention of this policy to alter the teaching style itself. Such cases represent good examples of where the opt-out should be used. In the form implemented at the University, lecture capture cannot routinely be used to, for example, capture activity that predominates around a chalkboard, whiteboard or flipchart. Teaching activities that use such equipment as the predominant visual form could rightly be excluded from automated recordings. Other common reasons cited for opposition to the policy are as follows:

• I do not want to be recorded - there is overwhelming support, particularly from UMSU and students who have experienced the lecture recording system that make this stance difficult to justify. However, the policy has been modified from its original draft such that teaching staff choosing to opt out of the recording process may do so, and that such requests will be honoured, except in cases where the DSO has determined that a reasonable adjustment for a students particular learning style is the availability of recorded teaching and learning sessions.

• I can withdraw my permission for recording to take place since I own the IP of my teaching materials - there appears to be a lot of misinformation regarding the intellectual property of lectures. The University owns the IP of all teaching materials produced by its staff. In the recording of lectures, the performance rights associated with the lecture belong to the academic delivering it, but the University has the right to use these as a consequence of employment.

30

- 6 -

• My lectures contain copyrighted materials that should not be disseminated elsewhere - no lecture should contain unattributed copyrighted materials. The Library has established a copyright advice service11 that can provide information to academics about how to avoid copyright issues.

• Lecture attendance will decline as a consequence of recordings - in Manchester, and elsewhere, lecture attendance has not suffered notable declines as a consequence of the introduction of recordings. Students gain much more from their presence at the lecture event itself rather than just listening to/watching a recording of it.

• We cannot control the material when it is released to students - the policy clearly sets out that duplication or redistribution of lecture capture material by students is prohibited and that doing so may result in disciplinary action. It is unrealistic to expect that any digital asset can be completely secure. However, the nature of recordings (images projected and the voice of the teacher) minimises, in so far as possible, the risk to the University and to individuals of potentially embarrassing or appropriate material.

• The University will assess my teaching activities through the recordings – while recording can, and should be used as self-reflective improvement in teaching, the policy contains an explicit statement that the recordings will not be used in performance management.

• We are pandering to the students - although fully supported by students, the main drivers for the introduction of lecture capture have not originated from students themselves.

The almost ubiquitous nature of recording devices (dictaphones, mobile phones, etc.) means that, even in the absence of University-enabled lecture recording, teaching staff must assume that all group-based teaching activities are already being recorded. The policy you are being asked to consider brings a greater level of control of these recordings to the University whilst also providing a rich and varied learning environment for students. Professor Richard J. Reece Associate Vice-President April 19 2013

11 http://subjects.library.manchester.ac.uk/copyright/

31

- 7 -

Appendix 1. University of Manchester teaching spaces equipped for automated lecture capture by August 2013 Tiered Lecture Theatres:

Theatre Capacity

1 Beyer - Beyer Th. 60

2 Chemistry - G.51 275



5 Coupland 1 - Pear Th. 100

6 Coupland 3 - Th. A 130

7 Coupland 3 - Th. B 80

8 Crawford House - Th. 1 394

9 Crawford House - Th. 2 80

10 Dover Street - Base. Th. 100

11 Ellen Wilkinson - A2.16 80



14 Ellen Wilkinson - C5.1 108

15 George Begg - C001 100

16 Hum Bridgeford St – Cord. 244

17 Hum Bridgeford St - G.32 78




21 Kilburn - 1.1 250

22 Kilburn - 1.3 80

23 Kilburn - 1.4 75

24 Kilburn - 1.5 80

25 Mansfield Cooper - G.19 102




29 Martin Harris - Casken 112

30 Pariser - C021 98

31 Renold - C002 300

32 Renold - C009 300

33 Renold - C016 490

34 Renold - D007 157

35 Renold - E007 157

36 Renold - F014 157

37 Renold - H011 157

38 Renold - J017 157

Tiered Lecture Theatres:

Theatre Capacity

39 Roscoe - Th. A 474

40 Roscoe - Th. B 236

41 Sackville - C009 80



44 Sackville - F047 180

45 Sackville - G037 48

46 Sackville - G041 52

47 Samuel Alexander - A101 82




51 Samuel Alexander - LG12 149

52 Samuel Alexander - SG1 92

53 Samuel Alexander - Th. 238

54 Schuster - Blackett 145

55 Schuster - Bragg 150

56 Schuster - Moseley 148

57 Schuster - Rutherford 258

58 Simon - Basement Th. 120

59 Simon - Ground Th. 121

60 St Peters H. - Chaplaincy 300

61 Stopford - Th. 1 323






67 The Mill - B019 108

68 University Place - Th. A 284

69 University Place - Th. B 600

70 Williamson - G.03 80



73 Zochonis - Th. A 162

74 Zochonis - Th. B 108

75 Zochonis - Th. C 55

76 Zochonis - Th. D 55

Flat Seminar Rooms:

Room Capacity

1 Roscoe - 1.001 40

2 Roscoe - 1.002 15

3 Roscoe - 1.003 35

4 Roscoe - 1.007 60

5 Roscoe - 1.008 60

6 Roscoe - 1.009 60

7 Roscoe - 1.010 60

8 Roscoe - 2.2 60

9 Roscoe - 2.3 60

10 Roscoe - 2.4 60

11 Roscoe - 2.5 60

12 Roscoe - 3.2 60

13 Roscoe - 3.3 60

14 Roscoe - 3.4 60

15 Roscoe - 3.5 60

16 Roscoe - 3.9 30

17 Roscoe - 4.10 10

18 Roscoe - 4.11 10

19 Roscoe - 4.2 36

20 Roscoe - 4.3 60

21 Roscoe - 4.4 60

22 Roscoe - 4.8 60

23 Roscoe - 4.9 25

The locations highlighted in red were enabled for automated lecture capture as part of the pilot.

32

university of manchester notes of lunch meeting of ......page 1 university of manchester notes of...

Documents