Cambridge (try to) stop recorded lectures

[Fathercrossmas]

I have to admire their stance here. While I think that recorded lectures should be available for those who might struggle attending or need them to support inclusive learning profiles, I do think for the majority they lose out in the long term. Binge watching lectures a week before an exam is no way to engage with a subject.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/03/cambridge-scholars-face-student-backlash-scrapping-recorded/

We're not demanding they attend, we're providing teaching in a format that we, as experienced educators, know will best equip them to succeed, both in terms of subject knowledge and skills. If they don't want to attend or engage, we'll follow up, but it's ultimately up to them.

And, you're right, the analogy isn't perfect. We're providing an education, not entertainment, which confers certain responsibilities and expectations on us. Students and parents are quick enough to blame academic staff for not contacting them over non-attendance when they actually fail the year or course.

I wonder whatever happened to the poster who insisted 'her' university students and lecturers far, far preferred online lectures and all universities wanted to implement them more widely and scrap in person lectures, and the only reason they had in person lectures was because pushy parents demanded them. I've never forgotten that particular madness.

Maybe it depends on the subject? Dd and her bf did engineering at Cambridge, 2018 -2021 so pre and post covid experiences. They seemed to like the recorded lectures in the mix - allowing going fast through some parts, replaying other bits as necessary for understanding. And maybe not having quite so many 9am was nice... skipping lectures wasn't really an option afaik, would have shown up in supervisions. DD reckoned the 4th yr options which were smaller groups and more interactive actually worked better on zoom (or teams or whatever ) than if they'd been in a physical space...all 'facing' each other and the 'whiteboard', as it were.

Interestingly, I’m teaching a year group who have somehow collectively decided that attending lectures is beneficial. I had five sessions with them last semester for guest lectures (not examinable) at 9am and attendance was over 80%. I then had one online session, because the speaker couldn’t attend in person, and attendance from the students looked very low online. It turned out that they were all in the lecture theatre and they’d figured out how to project the talk onto the screen so they could watch together. It’s great to see them chatting after the sessions and they’re very good at asking questions in class too.
I teach part of another large class where lectures are online only and they have asked for the lectures to move to in person, so maybe the tide is turning.

I typed a post and MN ate it 😒 I FUCKING HATE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS. Anyway.

I think there are good reasons for lectures to be recorded by the institution, though not necessarily made available to all students. I left there (as a student) in 2020, and had permission throughout to audio-record lectures for my own use, as a disability accommodation. The University's disability service was great at getting helpful disability accommodations written up for you, but in practice…

Even with a DSA-supplied directional microphone, the sound quality of a recording taken from the student's location is inadequate. You mostly hear ambient lecture theatre noises — typing, coughing, shuffling, sniffing, benches creaking, doors banging, birdsong, and so on — with a faint suggestion that somewhere in the next county, a medievalist or a biochemist may be trying to be heard.

Theoretically I was also supposed to be able to request slides in advance so I could sync them in lecture capture software with my audio recording, as the lectures frequently would have made little sense without the slides. The one time I asked (nicely!) for slides (before discovering any recordings I made were crap, even if I somehow managed to get to lectures ahead of everyone else to ensure a seat at the front and for setup time, and avoid typing or sitting next to someone typing), I got a discouraging response, and given my recordings were pretty useless anyway, I didn't ask again.

There's no point to a disability accommodation that the student can't actually use (and that wasn't the only example of supposed accommodations that in practice either didn't work or were refused, but that's beside the point). If they offer that accommodation to certain disabled students then they must believe it's a necessary accommodation in order to provide a level playing field. If it is necessary, then the accommodation needs to be actually usable, and not require the disabled student to jump through unnecessary, difficult hoops. If a necessary, usable, and non-disadvantaging solution can reasonably be provided, then it should be.

Rather than making every student with this accommodation have to try and work out the principles of audio engineering, learn to advocate for themselves with authority figures who are reluctant to follow the accommodations, and teleport across sites to get to lecture theatres before anyone else, Cambridge could definitely afford to make proper lecture recordings, including slides and audio, available specifically to disabled students who have this accommodation. You could digitally watermark the files to discourage sharing, if you wanted, which is more than you could do with any recording the student makes, and/or require students to confirm that they understand they don't have the right to share the lecture. Lecturers' rights and interests need to be protected, but I think most disabled students needing to access recordings of lectures would understand why restrictions would be required, and wouldn't abuse the accommodation.

The outcome of this provision would be the same as the purported desired outcome of the accommodations I was granted — audio recordings, with accompanying slides, of their lectures, for disabled students who would benefit from this. The fact that they don't want to provide University recordings for disabled students suggests to me that, perhaps, one reason they were okay with disabled students having this recording accommodation was that, in practice, we all realised it was pointless even trying, so the lectures didn't end up actually being recorded at all.

I don’t think it’s fair on lecturers or teachers of any kind to routinely record them. Such an entitled generation this is that thinks they have the right to create a digital record of someone else’s work and own that record and distribute it however they like.

It’s crazy. Pay all that money and don’t bother to show up….

Sorry I don't have a share token but thank you to a pp who put up a similar and accessible link.

I think something has to change. Lecturing to handful of students, having most watch online with tinny sound and poor visuals, and then complaints about student experience isn't sustainable.

The BBC is running a story just this morning about students complaining because uni teaching is hybrid 'like a streaming service' and 'not value for money'. Dammed if we do, dammed if we don't.

They’re never happy.

in some cases, it’s because the idea of ‘satisfaction’ sets the expectations entirely wrong. Students think the course should be enjoyable and convenient. Turns out that learning to think differently is often uncomfortable and requires you to work hard at things that may not come together well for months yet. Many students see this as a failing of the course rather than just how it is.

Wider issues in society add to the feeling of pressure in students so they are too anxious to be able to sit with the discomfort and uncertainty in ways that were more possible in the past.

They need to hang that ‘dissatisfaction’ on something, so they misdiagnose the problem as online lectures or lack of them or too much reading or too hard reading or not enough support or too much work or a whole range of other things. It varies by university/subject/cohort what gets the blame in various ways. And there are very obvious social effects on student perceptions.

University management then take them at their word and jump to tell staff they must fix these things. Ironically for institutions full of researchers who know how to understand problems and the issues with all sorts of research methods, student experience is so often based on really dire self-report mechanisms that are accepted uncritically. It’s almost impressive how poor methodologies for course evaluation are, or how bad course design research is in so many institutions.

The cause of that is not useless staff though. It’s ridiculous workloads and having to prioritise activities. With job insecurity and problematic workplace cultures contributing to an unwillingness to rock the boat.

It’s a mess generally.

We don't have hybrid anything. Absolutely everything is in person, and in small groups as well (no more than 12 students).

Guess what? They still complain! They're expected to attend all teaching (and some of it is in the MORNING!), there isn't online provision, they have to read in advance for the seminar, they have to speak in class or work in groups, there are essays to write, they have to to exams! It's all so UNFAIR!

Ah yes, the old "I want lectures to be in person so I can see my friends, but I want exams to be online" BS. Sigh.

Students think the course should be enjoyable and convenient

Ideally it would be!

As I can’t read the article, are we talking about lectures (often v large groups) or seminars (usually small groups) here? The headline, sub heading & first line go back & forth between lectures and seminars, which seems a big point of distinction. Our place has gone back to in-person lectures with lecture capture, but seminars are strictly in-person only, with no option to join online, such as via Teams. This has caused some disquiet among students, who I think enjoyed what they saw as the best of both worlds last year: they could attend the seminar from bed if they wanted due to the hybrid option, and those who wanted to could come in. Now there’s only in-person, and some students are realising that if they don’t show up, they don’t get the teaching & associated benefits, and there are some disgruntled students out there.

Now there’s only in-person, and some students are realising that if they don’t show up, they don’t get the teaching & associated benefits, and there are some disgruntled students out there.

Hopefully this issue will work its way out with the current Year 2 and 3 cohort. We've found the current Year 1 more engaged, and also (now we've removed self-awarded extensions) less inclined to ask for extensions for no good reason.

DD has CFS. If her university hadn't recorded their lectures she would have missed several as she struggled to stay awake during lectures. She attended most of her lectures and used the recordings to consolidate her lecture notes.

The only drawback was that they used to wait a couple of days before they got put online so, on one occasion when she slept through the first lecture in a series of 9 (3 lectures over three days) she couldn't attaned the subsequent lectures because each one built upon the previous one.

Wouldn't it be better to take attendance and reward/penalise non attandance instead?

When her university went back to F2F teaching she said that attending lectures in person was much better than watching them online.

@onyttig has nailed how it feels working as an academic in HE currently

@GCAcademic Yes I’ve found my Year 1s very engaged and ‘on it’, which is promising. The Year 3s are also ok mostly - perhaps the pressure of the final year. The less said about the Year 2s the better…

It often just cannot be. Because learning is not always enjoyable or convenient.

Actual learning can be deeply uncomfortable. Studying is often inconvenient in various ways. Like having 9am classes on a Friday.

Ideally, the course will be stretching and enriching and challenging and a whole variety of things that students do not experience as or associate with enjoyable.

The morning issue irritates me beyond belief. Having students declare they 'can't' attend (even online) anything before 11 is ridiculous when I've been up all night with a toddler, and left the house at 6 to be there. And they want us to make them employable!

It’s dire. Especially when you’re given a module with only 9am classes. You know that you’re going to get crap evaluation scores and terrible attendance (plus the resulting lower attainment) compared to people who got 11am classes.

The idea that it should be convenient is problematic. Life of rarely convenient and higher education is should not be evaluated as if it’s Spotify or something.

9am is convenient and expected to the working population. It's not like we are demanding them in for 3am drills.

I did my first degree the traditional way, attending all lectures in person. There were no recordings if you missed one, though some lecturers would upload their presentations.

I did my second fully remotely/long-distance. The only thing I ever attended in person was the final exams.

I got firsts in both but enjoyed the second one much more, and if I do another degree I would absolutely choose long-distance.

9am is convenient and expected to the working population

I think 9am Thursday morning has to be the worst lecture slot ever for attendance.

When her university went back to F2F teaching she said that attending lectures in person was much better than watching them online.

In my experience, the higher achieving students prefer to do both. Not having to worry about taking notes during the lecture means that they can concentrate fully on what is being said/shown.