This document summarizes the results of a pilot program at Winston-Salem State University that tested using lecture capture technology to record classes and make the recordings available to students online. The summary includes: 1) Student perceptions of the lecture videos were generally positive, with most finding them helpful for reviewing material and clarifying concepts. However, some students reported technical issues accessing the videos. 2) Both students and faculty felt the videos provided additional benefits to learning without negatively impacting class attendance. Suggestions were made to improve video quality and access. 3) The pilot showed promise but also identified areas for refinement, such as addressing technical issues and segmenting longer videos, to maximize the benefits of making course recordings

2. Of the 42% who did not the view an entire video, the majority indicated they didn’t have time to watch the whole video.

3. 65% of the students who viewed at least one video watched at least 10 minutes of the video.

5. “I really really enjoy the video lectures I think every class and every university should have access to such a wonderful tool. It is an excellent guide to enforcing better study habits.”

7. “Get rid of the extra password, we already have one for Banner.”

8. “These should be downloadable because we don’t all have the Internet at home.”

9. “Work on the camera positions in class.”

10. “Make them available to everyone, not just those in this class.”

12. “I think the A students did not need the videos which was 4 out of my 15 students. The students that struggled with the material had trouble with the videos they expressed to me that they could not stop and ask me the question when they did not understand a topic in the video lecture.”Even though all three instructors said they did not see any apparent learning/performance differences, two recommended the continued and expanded use of Panopto at WSSU. <br />Finally, faculty were asked to “please provide any additional comments you would like us to consider relating to the use of Panopto at WSSU.” One participant answered the question and provided the following comment, “Looks like simply attending class and taking good notes, in other words, the old fashioned, tried and true methods, work best.”<br />Discussion<br />Overall, it appears that students who utilized Panopto overwhelmingly thought it was beneficial to the class in which they were enrolled. Although this was a pilot study with only 72 students, almost half of the students who completed the assessments reviewed at least one video. The most common reasons to view the videos were to review for a quiz/test, to get clarity on a topic discussed in class, and to reinforce good study habits. The students who reviewed the videos more frequently, and for longer periods of time appear to be those students whose GPAs are hovering around the 3.1-3.5 range. This may be interpreted in a number of ways: 1) students who have lower GPAs may not have well-developed study habits to begin with, so they were not assessing the videos as much or over a certain period of time; 2) students with very high GPA (3.6 and higher) may not feel the need to review the videos because they have developed a system of notetaking and studying that does not necessitate additional strategies; and/or 3) the majority of students enrolled in the class have a GPA between 3.1 and 3.5, so they naturally would be the ones reviewing the videos. As indicated in the Results section, 85% of students found the videos helpful in providing information relevant to the course. It appears that it is both advantageous and helpful to students if CETL continues using Panopto in classes with high DFWs.<br />It appears that two of the main factors that helped students decide whether or not to access the videos were class requirements, and time. Of those students who did not review any videos, over half said they did not because it was not required for the course. As with many classes, students are focused on requirements for the course and it is important to make sure that reviewing at least one or two of the videos are somehow integrated into the syllabi of faculty. Students are more likely utilize the software if there is an obvious and smooth incorporation into student expectations for the course. Students also indicated they did not have enough time to review the videos. It is unclear if students believed that they needed to review the entire video, or if it was made clear to them that they had options. The summer sessions are very fast and intense, and most of the students who were attending classes (per Assessment data) also worked at least 20 hours per week. Students were honest in saying they had to prioritize what they could and could not do in this shorten course. This again speaks to making Panopto a requirement so that students will not have to make those types of study and review choices in the future. <br />Although only three faculty members provided feedback on their experience with Panopto, two were teaching the Biology 2312 class which has one of the highest DFWs at WSSU. The reviews from faculty were mixed to say the least. Faculty did not see the benefit of the videos to the students. The videos were not seen as convenient, helpful in student preparation for quizzes and exams, or in discussions. This may be a direct reflection of the fact that all videos during the pilot were recorded during an actual class session. One of the ideas that was originally presented to faculty was for them to pre-record certain modules or sections—this would have allowed students to review information focused on hard-to-learn concepts, and not view a class they may have already sat through. Pre-recording has the potential to have faculty teach a concept/theory/phenomenon in a virtual one-on-one session with PowerPoint slides, instead of moving around the classroom. None of the faculty agreed to pre-record, so this is something that will be explored in the fall 2009 sessions.<br />Limitations<br />No studies, especially a quasi-experimental one, is without limitations. The first limitation is that only three professors provided data, and not everyone viewed the videos. Even though the data was aggregated, one professor had the majority of students using the software. It is unclear if accessing/using the software is positively correlated with the incentive given by that professor. Secondly, students were self-reporting and may over exaggerate their software usage because of the desire to obtain the incentive. It is not known if the data is skewed in the pilot because most of the students were Nursing majors, and the Biology 2312 is a pre-requisite for the actual program. This could mean that students are theoretically more motivated to do well in this particular class, because not doing so would mean denied entry into a specialized program. Finally, the summer session is a very short session, and often attracts a hodgepodge of students from WSSU and other surrounding schools—many of who are not traditional undergraduate students. It is uncertain whether the results from this session would match those of a traditional 15-week course taught to traditional students. <br />