ROWAN WILLIAMSON University of the Arts London
I was asked to speak at the UKSG conference this year with a colleague from Imperial. We were asked to talk about the experience of moving online in our institutions, comparing and contrasting the experience in an Arts institution, with one that is primarily STEM, medicine and business focused. It was really interesting to explore how similar the challenges have been
One area that developed into a significant point of exploration for both of us was around the use of video in teaching. This is a summary of our two viewpoints on using video in teaching.
Synchronous vs asynchronous learning
UAL libraries had little experience of teaching or creating resources for online learning pre-pandemic. Like many libraries we were seeing a shift in ways of using the tools and platforms what with discussions on synchronous and asynchronous learning. Initially we used video as a way to capture live online sessions for students who want to recap, students who missed the session, or those in other time zones studying remotely. As we adjusted to the new online environment we found ourselves creating more pre-prepared videos in advance. As one Librarian said to me ‘if it’s going to end up as a video anyway, you want to do it properly and have a well-designed and presented video not just a recorded live session.
Quantity V Quality
Unfortunately it was impossible to upskill everyone and find time to discuss learning design concepts or pedagogy. What we were ending up with was just content for information dissemination rather than active teaching with learning design at its heart. The trouble is that building in opportunities for interactions for asynchronous or self-paced stand-alone sessions as opposed to within courses with ongoing contact is difficult. It is harder to move from content to contact so these videos are then perceived as resources not part of the teaching. As static resources without a framework (within the course or assessment) or facilitation in a live environment, they get low engagement and there is no way to measure their impact.
Video killed the library star?
And as they shift from being used in a live session to introduce content, to being posted on the VLE as self-directed learning content, the fear is that these become an easy substitute for courses who struggle to find the time in their curriculum to engage with all the library has to offer. Why invite in a librarian to your precious contact time when you can signpost students to some self-directed learning in their own time.
Available V accessible
With what one librarian described as ‘video churn’ we saw other issues. Being able to rapidly create resources (that then need curating and navigating) is not the same as creating ‘quality pre-prepared resources’ which takes time and skill. We had to introduce accessibility design training and a sign off process for all videos to ensure that we were creating truly ‘accessible’ content, rather than just making content ‘available’ to be accessed by students in different time zones for example.
Compassionate and inclusive
Overall the workload involved in working through the various iterations of video as teaching tool, video as platform, video as content, has been massive. Video can be the apparent solution to pedagogical challenges moving online, but it can also increase workloads. Many early efforts had to be reproduced, or were discovered to be duplicating efforts across the department. In addition, changes to HE platforms of choice (BB Collborate, Panopto) create a constant need to keep up and keep changing. Few of us have library staff with designated roles to do this or to enable our teams to do this. With strategic content creation, we can better leverage video to create quality learning resources, as long as we recognise the new demands on librarians time and skillsets, and even the possibility that we need new roles that didn’t exist before (might we see a growth in learning technologist with dedicated library roles as at imperial?). As we meet this radical shift in our own department it is ever more important that the compassionate and inclusive pedagogy includes considerations for staff as well as students.
COCO NIJHOFF Imperial College London
To record or not to record, that is the question!
I met Rowan virtually this summer when we both agreed to present at the November UKSG conference. Talking through our respective situations as we moved an academic library’s teaching offer to mostly online delivery has been fruitful. The very process of sharing our similarities and differences has forced us to stop and reflect while we are still mired in the whirlwind of pandemic-based work. This period has been marked by huge changes to working patterns for both staff and students and has elicited discussions of the meaning of transformation like never before.
Synchronous vs asynchronous learning
As Rowan has stated, there are many challenges within the synchronous vs asynchronous learning paradigm in particular. At Imperial Library we faced similar issues in making decisions about how to present our teaching offer online. Rowan has touched on the importance of recordings from the standpoint of accessibility, which is a critical consideration. Students can view recordings at a pace that fits their needs, at a convenient time. Students in different time zones have better access to content, as they can view lectures when they wish, rather than being locked into live teaching presented at the wrong time of day. Thus recordings allow us to reach a wider audience in terms of geography and ability.
Learning design and the active learning imperative
At Imperial College we have a Learning and Teaching Strategy, launched in 2018, which outlines institutional priorities for learning. One of these, which we have been keen to explore in the library, is active learning. Active learning in the classroom fits neatly within the librarians’ bailiwick in that we often teach standalone sessions. As a result, we rely heavily on formative assessment to gauge learning in the classroom. We moved this way of working into our live online sessions fairly smoothly, making a point to include activities, for example, quizzes, polls, or contributing to shared documents. How to incorporate active learning into video recordings presented a greater challenge. Our Business Liaison Librarians used recordings to advantage using a flipped model of learning. They recorded presentations using Panopto lecture capture software with PowerPoint slides and voice. Much of the learning content was presented in the Panopto video, which students viewed prior to compulsory Q&A sessions with a librarian to reinforce learning. In the live sessions the team observed that many students were highly engaged, asking thoughtful questions. The team was able to demonstrate how student contact with a librarian as a guide is a beneficial, or even non-negotiable, aspect of learning. In this example, videos do not replace the value of a human librarian.
Recordings lend themselves well to the presentation of factual information, for example, in inductions. It is possible, however, to build in content to provide a more active learning experience, such as the Panopto quiz feature. During the video, students are presented with a question, time for reflection and an interactive quiz question. My colleague Heather Lincoln wrote about her use of this flipped method as a case study in a CILIP Information Literacy Group blog post.
Lunchtime workshops
At Imperial Library we offer a series of optional support for academic and Information Literacy skills, Library lunchtime workshops. These sessions are designed based on Constructivist learning principles, using solo and group activities to reinforce learning. While somewhat labour-consuming to re-design, we were able to move this series to live online delivery using Microsoft Teams fairly smoothly. We had initially planned to have an accompanying set of shorter pre-recorded sessions on each topic, providing students an asynchronous alternative. These would be created separately and include pauses for solo activities within the recordings, as recording live sessions was not an ideal option. We felt that activities from live sessions would not be captured well nor would they be of interest to a different audience. Furthermore, student consent is required for recordings.
Unfortunately, the time necessary to design the videos turned out to be prohibitive. We ultimately decided this wouldn’t be feasible for Autumn 2020 due to staff workload and we abandoned this aspect of the plan. We plan to take this up for Autumn 2021.
Staff sustainability
I agree wholeheartedly with what Rowan says about upskilling staff. Both the technology and the learning design are time-consuming to learn well while keeping quality in mind. Instead, when we adopt new tools and platforms, or use our existing tools in a new way, we have had to opt for quick implementation that meets our goals and objectives, is fit for purpose, and is as student-centered as possible. In the pandemic, we can’t aim for perfection. It has been a time of experimentation, constantly modifying plans, and managing expectations.
My diagram is an attempt to show the many considerations we are facing and the ‘melting pot’ of learning and teaching, technology, staff sustainability within an HE library context.
The future: Coco and Rowan
Both libraries are preparing for the possibility that we need to consider some radical changes. With that comes an exciting opportunity to rise again to the challenge of creating a culture of continuous improvement and to share expertise. Just what libraries are known for.
Digital Technology Group Blog 