This in-depth study is part of a systematic effort to improve teaching effectiveness in courses that traditionally show high D, F, W grades (high DFW) at Winston-Salem State University (WSSU).

1.
WSSU – Winston‐Salem State University
CETL – Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Using Video Lecture Capture (VLC)
systems to enhance teaching in high
DFW courses at WSSU: Case studies
Dr. Alvaro H Galvis, galvisal@wssu.edu, CETL Director and VLC project leader
Dr. David Kump, kumpds@wssu.edu, Life Sciences Department
Dr. Jeffrey Overholt, overholtjl@wssu.edu, Life Sciences Department
Dr. Nelson Adams, adamsn@wssu.edu, Behavioral Sciences and Social Work Department
Winston‐Salem, August 2010
VLC

2. Using Video Lecture Capture (VLC)
systems to enhance teaching in high
DFW courses at WSSU: Case studies
Table of Contents
Participants ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Study leaders ............................................................................................................................................ 3
.
Collaborators ............................................................................................................................................ 3
.
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
About VLC and Panopto ................................................................................................................................ 5
Literature review .......................................................................................................................................... 6
.
Pilot studies in two phases ........................................................................................................................... 8
Educational findings from the first phase of the pilot study .................................................................... 9
Educational findings from the second phase of the pilot study ............................................................... 9
In depth studies about the use of PANOPTO in high DFW classes ............................................................. 10
Understanding the three VLC interventions ........................................................................................... 10
Data collection and processing ............................................................................................................... 12
Findings from the use of VLC in the three courses ................................................................................. 12
Final survey results ............................................................................................................................. 12
.
Correlation between student view of VLC and scores in related tests ................................................... 16
From PSY 2301 data in Panopto log system, quizzes, and exams ...................................................... 17
From BIO3311 data in Panopto log system and exams ...................................................................... 17
From BIO 1301 data in Panopto log system, quizzes, and exams ...................................................... 19
.
Lessons learned from VLC experience .................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................ 22
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 24
2

3. Participants
This study was conducted by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) from Winston‐
Salem State University in collaboration with faculty members from the College of Arts and Science and in
coordination with the Information Resources Office.
Study leaders
Dr. Alvaro H Galvis, galvisal@wssu.edu, CETL director and VLC project leader
Dr. David Kump, kumpds@wssu.edu, Life Sciences Department
Dr. Jeffrey Overholt, overholtjl@wssu.edu, Life Sciences Department
Dr. Nelson Adams, adamsn@wssu.edu, Behavioral Sciences and Social Work Department
Collaborators
Dr. Ian Toppin, toppinin@wssu.edu, faculty developer CETL and VLC technology leader
Dr. Naomi Hall, hallna@wsssu.edu, Behavioral Sciences and Social Work Department, and VLC
evaluation leader
Ms. Jigishaben Patel, jpatel109@wssu.edu, CETL graduate assistant, data and video processing
3

4. Abstract
This in‐depth study is part of a systematic effort to improve teaching effectiveness in courses that
traditionally show high D, F, W grades (high DFW) at Winston‐Salem State University (WSSU). A pilot
study in two phases was designed and conducted during summer 2009 and fall 2009 semesters in order
to solve important questions concerning the educational use of Panopto. Panopto is a Video Lecture
Capture (VLC) system that was selected among others as a good candidate because of its functionality,
robustness, and affordable operational costs. The pilot study’s first phase (summer 2009) confirmed
that Panopto was a robust and functionally effective VLC system, both for teachers (capturing and
sharing video lectures) and students (having access and supplementing their course study materials with
VLC learning objects). The second phase (fall 2009) concerned questions about students’ and teachers’
opinions regarding VLC in different courses. The second phase also assessed VLC’s impact on student
performance and whether students viewed or did not view VLC lessons on a regular basis, as well as
statistical data analysis to corroborate findings from similar studies in other organizations. Three
courses with different methods of using VLC were compared with the purpose of learning from each of
the experiences and determining VLC conditions that might generate positive results. Data from the
second phase was also analyzed in this in‐depth study. Participating faculty were interviewed by the
study leader and their reflections about processes and products helped to understand data from student
surveys, from Panopto’s log system, and from each faculty’s grade system. Lessons learned by students
and faculty serve as framework for conclusions and recommendations for teachers willing to use VLC
systems such as Panopto. It was established that the use of VLC to enhance teaching can be very
productive when students review video recordings on a regular basis; finding the way to intrinsically
motivate students to benefit from video recordings seems to be the great challenge that faculty might
have using VLC systems. Students who regularly viewed videos to supplement other media available in
their courses got better exam results than students who did not view videos, although this fact did not
always show with significant differences to non‐viewers. However, impact on quizzes’ results was not
evident. On the other hand, the amount of time reviewing video lectures seemed to matter, as it
appeared to correlate with exam scores in one of the courses. What, when, and how to view the
recordings also seemed to make a difference, as suggested by student feedback. Generalized student
opinions about the convenience of video lecture capture as a supplement to other media used in their
courses can be attributed to important reasons mentioned by respondents concerning why it was worth
viewing recorded lectures. Also, high opinion of students about VLC may be explained by the way VLC
was integrated in the course, as it is evident in BIO 3311, where active learning before, during, and after
class activities served to improve overall student performance. Based on this experience and on
literature review findings, authors provide suggestions for possible future users of VLC.
4

5. About VLC and Panopto
Video Lecture Capture (VLC) technology allows faculty to record their lessons and share them on the
Internet with their students, including audio (such as the faculty member’s lecture), computer feeds (the
presentation or screen capture), and video if desired (the faculty member explaining or doing work at
the smart board/whiteboard). Lessons can be recorded alive during class session or out‐of‐class (before
or after class time) and can be uploaded to a web server with stream‐video capacity. The student can
then get access to the recording via a Learning Management System such as Blackboard and review each
class session at his/her own pace, searching contents via text, video thumbnails, time selection, or
sequential order. The VLC system keeps a record of who views what, when, and for how long.
After reviewing commercial and open source VLC systems, CETL and the Office of Information Resources
at WSSU selected Panopto (see http://www.panopto.com ) to pilot test VLC systems in a face‐to‐face
setting. Panopto is an open source VLC system that can be used at a reasonable price. It allows recording
of class sessions from networked computers with webcam and microphone, screen casting with audio
and video almost immediately after the recording, hosting the information locally or remotely, and
sharing the video efficiently on the Internet at costs that are significantly lower than commercial VLC.
Experience at Suffolk University implementing Panopto’s Course cast system indicates that this solution
allowed people to record anytime, anywhere with standardized technology. In higher education, “there
is very little IT involvement during the recording & publishing process. We are giving the end‐user the
power to manage it all. Relevancy of content depends on how quickly it can be made available.
CourseCast provides that ability” (Panopto, 2008). Based on the above considerations and having
conducted hands‐on exploration of the product, WSSU received a free 45‐day trial license of Panopto
during the summer of 2009.
Three faculty members agreed to use Panopto to supplement instruction during their summer 2009
courses; these faculty members recorded and shared class sessions with their students, provided
feedback about the system and its use, and helped collect feedback from students. The summer 2009
experience confirmed that Panopto was easy to use from both the faculty and student perspectives, that
the system properly captured both screen and audio and video if requested, that it was possible to share
captured lessons via Blackboard course shells, and that the data collected by Panopto about students’
usage was useful to find out who viewed what, when, and for how long. Based on this product
assessment, a campus‐wide Panopto license was acquired at the end of summer 2009. This license was
hosted by Panopto and managed by CETL, and a VLC Initiative research protocol was submitted for
approval to the WSSU Institutional Review Board for Protection of Human Subjects. This proposal was
approved (IRB #2986‐10‐0011).
5

6. Literature review
A literature review about the educational impact of VLC was done as a framework for the design of the
VLC initiative, taking into consideration that the ultimate goal to integrate any technology for teaching is
to improve student learning (Galvis A. H., 2009). At WSSU, this goal is particularly important since,
according to the WSSU Strategic Plan 2010‐2015, institutional research studies have shown a constant
decline in retention each semester as a result of increasing number of students who are dropping,
failing, or withdrawing from classes each semester. As mentioned in the research protocol entitled
“Video Lecture Capture (VLC) Initiative” (Galvis, Hall, & Toppin, 2009) a number of different approaches
have been taken across the academy to address the issue of high DFWs. Some of these approaches
included modifying tutoring services, increasing mentorship initiatives, following up at‐risk students at
shorter intervals in order to monitor their progress, and providing remediation among other efforts
(WSSU, 2010). Since the core of student academic success centers around what happens in the
classroom, the lecture‐capture approach seemed to be a good solution for enhancing student
performance. Lectures captured using digital video and made available using streaming video allow
students to review information the instructor explained at their own pace. Students can also view any
associated visual aids and search for concepts and resources related to those aids. Lectures captured in
this way may help students overcome weaknesses in areas such as taking notes, paying attention over
extended periods of time, or understanding language barriers. Another very important aspect is the
students’ ability to independently review lecture material without slowing the class pace. Students who
may lack certain skills can, therefore, remediate without having to spend class time doing so.
Early work with lecture‐capture at Notre Dame University reports a positive learning impact in the ability
to review class lecture videos (Chandra, 2007). The same study also established that VLC can be used
individually by faculty members (without videographer) with sufficient quality and at reasonable cost.
Faculty concerns reported in this study (ibid) included:
(1) Students who would just listen to the videos and not attend to class itself. To our surprise, this
never happened, usually students showed up for each lecture. Student feedback collected
indicates that ‘honestly, going to lecture and seeing everything in person is much less of a hassle
than trying to catch things from a video’. Students felt that storing the videos along with the
printed notes would be more useful to give some context to the hard copy of notes.
(2) There is a record of every word spoken by faculty. Sometimes faculty may misspeak or state
something incorrectly; we consider this to be an acceptable risk, faculty are not infallible.
(3) [VLC] will take up too much of the faculty’s precious time without any tangible benefits to the
students. We made a conscious effort to not advertise the videos, the objects just showed up on
the class web page and on iTunes. All the usage reported was from voluntary users; some of the
lectures were very popular.
(4) Legality and intellectual property implications of such recordings. This is a topic for future
counsel.
6

7. A report by Educause Learning Initiative (2008) indicates that, while not intended as a replacement for
in‐class instruction, lecture capture systems offer three important benefits: an alternative when
students miss class; an opportunity for content review, particularly when abstruse topics are introduced
or detailed procedures are performed; and content for online course development. The same report
states that lecture capture works especially well in subject areas where students benefit from repeated
viewing of content, as when complex information is discussed or formulas are written on a board. Some
worry that students may cut classes in favor of viewing captured lectures. Yet, from the advent of the
cassette tape through the emergence of the podcast, students have found that recordings take as much
time to absorb as a live lecture, but without the opportunities for question‐and‐answer or interaction
with their classmates.
A more recent study (Schaffhauser, 2009) reports that faculty’s use of lecture capture has grown as the
systems have become easier to use. Typically, beginning the capture process requires nothing more
than “having the faculty member press a button or turn on a computer. It’s done automatically” (ibid).
Ease of use provides a threshold for turning lecture capture from an option into a necessity: “People are
going to start getting the sense that this is really helping the learner” (ibid).
Reflections about lecture capturing at University of Alberta, CA (Boufford, 2009) stated that faculty
should:
1) take advantage of using video to provide value added content to the podcast by recording the
text, images, and other visual information not just the talking head!,
2) reorganize lectures, converting them from long linear streams of content into discrete chunks of
information, where each lecture can “stand alone” on its own as a presentation,
3) put themselves in the place of a student and ask “Would I want to listen to or watch this?”
When planning to podcast lectures, always remember “presentation capture” not “talking head
capture”.
7

8. Pilot studies in two phases
A pilot study in two phases was designed and conducted at WSSU. Phase 1 was done during summer
2009 with data provided by three faculty members who taught courses with high DFW grades and by
some of their students who used Panopto to view recorded class sessions and signed informed consent
letters. This phase allowed collecting feedback about the use of Panopto’s CourseCast system already
mentioned, as well as provided solutions to initial questions concerning students’ and faculty members’
opinion about the use of the system.
Phase 2 was conducted during the Fall 2009 semester, implementing the research protocol entitled
“Video Lecture‐Capture (VLC) Initiative” (Galvis, Hall, & Toppin, 2009). Phase 2 included eight faculty
members voluntarily selected among those who taught courses with high DFW grades. Students from at
least one of their course sections were also involved; both faculty and students voluntarily accepted to
participate in the study and signed an informed consent form. Researchers used a mixed‐method,
correlation design to investigate the following questions:
 Whether this type of system can help enhance the teaching and learning processes;
 If the system can enhance the teaching and learning process and to what extent;
 If the availability of the videos has any significant impact on student assessment scores; and
 If students find the VLC software helpful and/or valuable to their learning experience.
Once the lectures were captured by the faculty, they were uploaded to the Panopto site on the Internet.
Students and faculty in those participating classes were provided with links to Survey Monkey © and
instructions about how to access the videos and assessment tools. These included:
 An initial survey to gather data about students’ background and prior knowledge (completed at
the beginning of the data collection period)
 An ongoing survey to collect immediate feedback after video review
 A final survey to gather feedback about perception of how using the software affected student
learning and performance in class (at the end of the data collection period)
 A Faculty Assessment Form to ascertain the perceptions of using the software, faculty
assessment of the impact of student performance, and suggestions for future use.
In addition, faculty were required to provide student performance data and class assessment results
with video episodes. This data was then correlated with data captured in Panopto’s log that provided
information about who viewed which episodes and when and for how long they were viewed.
Four of the eight Phase 2 faculty were invited to participate in an in‐depth study comparing two types of
VLC‐based interventions. The first of these interventions used in‐class recording and the second
intervention consisted of out‐of‐class recording. Three faculty completed their case documentation.
Reports prepared by faculty included the information required in the VLC research protocol. In addition,
two interviews per faculty were conducted by the project PI, the first one to understand each VLC
intervention, and the second one to comment on data and findings; both interviews were video‐
recorded.
8

9. Educational findings from the first phase of the pilot study
Findings from summer 2009 survey analysis (Hall, 2009) show that:
 Students who utilized Panopto overwhelmingly (85%) thought it was helpful, beneficial and
valuable to the class in which they were enrolled.
 The students who reviewed the videos more frequently, and for longer periods of time, appear
to be students whose GPA hovered around the 3.1‐3.5 range.
 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. Other students worked at least 20 hours
per week and they had to prioritize what they could do or not in this shortened summer course.
 Faculty did not see the benefit of video recording full sessions for students in terms of helping
learners in their preparation for quizzes and exams. All recordings during summer 2009 were
live and class long; there was neither a requirement nor an incentive to view the recordings, just
curiosity and willingness to learn on the part of students. Recordings gave students the
opportunity to review class information with full lecture access.
It was evident from the above findings that student motivation to review recorded materials was the
most important challenge faced with the use of VLC systems. A second challenge was to motivate faculty
to find and use creative ways to include VLC in their teaching and, as a consequence, to adjust their
course syllabi to reflect activities that could promote video usage.
Educational findings from the second phase of the pilot study
Findings from fall 2009 survey and performance assessment data (Hall, 2010) indicate that:
 The vast majority of students thought the VLC was helpful, beneficial, and valuable to their
learning experience in the participating classes.
 The students who accessed the VLC system most frequently were those who had GPAs either in
the very high or low range.
 Students who worked more than 11 hours per week were more likely to utilize the videos for
instruction and review.
 The availability of pre/post‐recorded and live recorded videos did not negatively impact student
attendance in classes.
 Data indicate that class structure should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to
implement VLC in a particular course.
 VLC usage did not have a statistically significant impact on assessment scores in individual
classes; however, the impact of usage on assessment scores was seen when data was
aggregated.
9

10. In depth studies about the use of PANOPTO in high DFW classes
Three faculty members participated in the in‐depth study. The study was designed to establish the
impact on students and faculty who used two types of Panopto‐based VLC interventions: live class
sessions (recorded during class sessions), out‐of‐class lecture sessions (pre or post‐class recorded
videos).
Understanding the three VLC interventions
The following table helps to understand VLC intervention in each case. In two of the cases, BIO 1301 and
PSY 2301, VLC was the only digital resource added to the “normal version” of the course, including both
class activities and tests; in BIO 3311, VLC was one of several digital components embedded in the
course activities and assessment system. In the three cases faculty made use of genuine in‐class
dialogues around topics explored and discussed in class. VLC was used live and out‐of‐class, with
different roles and goals as presented in the following table.
Course code Course characteristics and instructor Methods, number and length of recordings
and name
BIO 1301 BIO 1301 is a science course required Eleven classes were recorded live and belong
General for all WSSU students. The course to nearly 75% of the course content; they are
Biology consisted of two weekly lecture related with exams 1 to 3. Average video
periods and a weekly lab period. length was 35 minutes. Power points
Freshmen students were provided by text publisher served as lecture
predominantly course participants; organizers.
class size was nearly 90 people for
lectures and around 30 for labs. Two preparation quizzes (2 minute and 16
minute videos) were recorded out‐of‐class,
Dr. David Kump is an assistant the first one similar to weekly text‐based quiz
professor of physiology at the Life preparation messages, the second more
Science Department. This was the first lecture‐type but focused on key elements.
time he taught BIO 1301 and he was
developing his particular approach to Four short videos, related to nearly 25% of
teaching this class. Over the 4th part of the course content, and associated with
the semester, he introduced exam 4, were also recorded alive. Average
interactive chalk talks as a means to video length is 17 minutes. Interactive “chalk‐
foster genuine dialogues about talk” with diagrams and notes on the white
concepts visualized either on the white board, plus power point presentation of
board or on the Power Point. textbook‐based figures, served as organizers
of video lectures captured.
PSY 2301 PSY 2301 is designed to provide the Dr. Adams decided to record supplemental
General student with a broad knowledge of the video segments as enrichment type
Psychology science of human behavior and presentations dealing with topics potentially
consciousness. It is primarily a lecture difficult to students. Based on his classroom
course where questions and discussion interaction, Dr. Adams choose topics that
are encouraged. Two sections of PSY added value to class sessions and provided
2301 participated in this research. Of further explanations about selected slides
10

11. some 80 students, nearly 65 made use used in class.
of video recordings to supplement
their study, but only 36 students gave
permission to use their data.
Through the Fall 2009 semester Dr. Adams
Dr. Nelson Adams is a professor of recorded twelve videos in his office. Each
Psychology at WSSU. He has taught recording was made available on the PSY
many different Psychology courses in 2301 course site in Blackboard. Students
the Psychology curriculum. He was were then able to look at a short
awarded the UNC Board of Governors presentation of what had been discussed in
Excellence in Teaching Award in 2002. class.
BIO 3311 BIO 3311 course and accompanying BIO 3311 redesign included several
Fundamentals Lab BIO 3111 were redesigned for components, one of which is VLC, as follows:
of Anatomy active learning and technology  Learning objectives per course unit
and integration during Summer 2009 and  YouTube video materials to provide a
Physiology, were taught during Fall 2009. good context per course unit
and  Lecture Power Point materials
accompanying BIO 3311 is a junior and senior level available for review
Lab (BIO course for biology majors that typically  Pre‐class online quiz to be graded
3111) enrolls 40‐50 students. The course had  VLC available after class or lab ended
been previously taught using  Practice quizzes available online
traditional lecture approach with  Flashcards / crossword puzzles /
standard paper quizzes and games from publisher’s material.
assignments, with a 40% to 50% failure VLC live recordings promoted active learning
rate. In the Fall semester 2009, the outside of the classroom. Recording live
semester of the redesign, 38 out of 40 sessions allowed students to review
students enrolled completed the questions raised in class, as well as to reflect
course. on discussions about concepts addressed
through class quizzes.
Dr. Jeffrey Overholt is Assistant
Professor of Physiology and a member BIO 3111 Lab sessions required students to
of the Biomedical Research prepare answers to any of 30 questions per
Infrastructure Center of the Life lab posted in Blackboard (Bb). Randomly
Sciences Department at WSSU. selected students presented their answers
before the class using VLC. Immediate
feedback was obtained using interactive
devices (clickers).
11

12. Data collection and processing
Students participating in above‐mentioned courses were invited to sign informed consent forms which
they returned to their teachers at the beginning of the semester; in addition, respondents to the final
survey were asked to confirm their permission to use data in VLC studies and publications. Survey
instruments designed for the VLC initiative (see Phase 2 pilot study above) were used to collect
information from students and faculty concerning their opinions about the use of VLC to supplement
course materials. On the other hand, Panopto’s log system provided information about who viewed
which video lecture and when and for how long the lecture was viewed. In addition, each faculty
member extracted information about performance in quizzes and exams from the course grading
system. With that information, each faculty member analyzed the data and produced a report that
supported the following findings and the creation of three video papers, in collaboration with Dr. Galvis
from CETL (Adams & Galvis, 2010), (Overholt & Galvis, 2010), and (Kump & Galvis, 2010).
Findings from the use of VLC in the three courses
Three sets of data helped evaluate the use of VLC by students and the impact it could have on student
learning: (1) answers to final survey, (2) log data from Panopto system, and (3) assessment data from
course grading system.
Final survey results
A subset of students who ended each of the courses accepted the invitation from their teachers to give
feedback about the experience. Participation points were offered to those who answered the survey;
students were allowed to authorize or not use of their answers in this study. Major findings from
authorized answers to this survey include:
 Use of VLC video varies, depending on the type (in class, out‐of‐class) and length of the
recording (class period, segments). There are more “heavy viewers” (watched more than 5 VLC)
in BIO 3311 (live full class recordings) than in PSY 2301 (short post recordings) or BIO 1301
(combined recording methods).
 The great majority of students (nearly 80% of respondents) expressed a high positive impact on
conceptual understanding because of VLC video viewing. BIO 3311 respondents rated the
impact of viewing videos higher than respondents from the other two courses.
 The great majority of students (nearly 80% of respondents) declared that there was no impact
of viewing VLC videos on class attendance. In BIO 3311 answers to this question were
unanimous.
 There are important suggestions from students concerning why, what, when, and how to view
VLC videos. These suggestions take into consideration the type of videos made available.
From final survey: Use of VLC by students
The final survey asked, “How many different video lectures did you view during this course?” The
following chart helps visualizing answers, as well as the differences among them. While PSY 2301 and
BIO 1301 respondents fall in all levels of VLC use, with nearly 20% of heavy viewers (more than 5 video
lectures), all BIO 3311 respondents viewed at least one VLC, with more than 50% of heavy viewers. The
predominant level of use seemed to be dependent on the course, but there was not a trend.
12

13. PSY 2301 (EoC respondents = 39
…
BIO 3311 (EoC respondents = 29
…
BIO 1301 (EoC respondents = 32
…
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0 1‐2 3‐4 More than 5
Figure 1. Number of video‐lectures per course watched during fall 2009 semester
In the three courses instructors asked students to review videos to supplement class notes and text
information; credit for watching the videos was not given in any of the cases. In all cases, students had
video lectures available in Bb almost the same day the recording was done, and videos were available
24/7 after they were posted in the corresponding Bb course shell.
From final survey: Time spent viewing video lectures
The final survey asked, “On average, how much time would you say you spent reviewing each
video?”The following chart helps visualize end‐of‐course (EoC) answers. While BIO 3311 videos
captured the whole class session and nearly 60% of respondents viewed 20 or more minutes or the
entire video, in PSY 2301 videos were 10 to 20 minutes long and nearly 50% of respondents viewed 20
or more minutes or the entire video. In BIO 1301, 75% of video lectures were class long while 25% of the
video lectures were segments of class sessions; nearly 35% of respondents in BIO 1301 viewed 20 or
more minutes or the entire video.
PSY 2301 (EoC respondents = 39 out of 80)
BIO 3311 (EoC respondents = 29 out of 40)
BIO 1301 (EoC respondents = 32 out of 90)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 5 minutes each
Between 6‐10 minutes each
Between 11‐20 minutes each
Between 21‐30 minutes each
More than 31 minutes each/entire video
Figure 2. Time spent viewing video lectures per course
13

14. From final survey: Students’ opinion of VLC
The final survey asked, “On a scale from 0‐10 (10 being the highest), how beneficial were the videos
viewed to your understanding of the concepts during this course?” The following chart helps visualize
EoC answers, as well as differences among them.
PSY 2301 (W‐AVG 7.26 points, 39
answers)
0 to 2 pts
BIO 3311 (W‐AVG 8.14 points, 29
answers) 3 to 5 pts
6 to 8 pts
BIO 1301 (W‐AVG = 7.09 points, 32
9 or 10 pts
answers)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 3. Students’ opinions of VLC
In each case there was a predominant positive impact on conceptual understanding because of VLC
video viewing (nearly 80% of respondents valued contributions with 6 or more points out of 10 in all
courses). Participants in BIO 3311 valued the contribution of VLC viewing higher than participants in the
other two courses. The weighted average in BIO 3311 was nearly one point higher than the W‐AVG for
the other two courses.
From final survey: Impact of viewing VLC videos on class attendance
The final survey asked, “The availability of the videos had…. [effect on attendance].”The following chart
helps visualize EoC answers, as well as differences among them. In all cases more than 80% of
respondents declared that there was no impact of viewing VLC videos on class attendance. In BIO 3311
that response was almost unanimous.
PSY 2301 (EoC respondents =
39 out of 80)
BIO 3311 (EoC respondents = No effect on my attendance
29 out of 40) Increased my attendance
Reduced my attendance
BIO 1301 (EoC respondents =
32 out of 90)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 4: Impact of viewing VLC on class attendance
14

15. From final survey: Suggestions to benefit from video usage
The final survey invited students to “provide any suggestions to other students on how to use the videos
to their benefit.” The following excerpts from student responses illustrate why, what, when, and how to
view VLC videos.
Table 1. Why view VLC videos?
PSY 2301 BIO 3311 BIO 1301
He breaks down everything better It is very beneficial if you missed Teachers will say things in them that
than he does in class. It's long but class or if you didn't understand a you may have missed that will be on
it's helpful certain section or missed something a test or quiz and you would never
in lecture. It could possibly answer know it.
any question that a student might
have.
The professor goes more into detail, View them regularly and after each It’s easy to get materials well and
uses more examples than he may class in order to make sure you have you can always go back to listen to
during class, so it helps you a clear understanding of what was an area you did not understand
understand concepts better than discussed in class rather than in class where once said
you may by just attending class its gone, unless you ask a question
for clarity
Table 2. What to view in VLC videos?
PSY 2301 BIO 3311 BIO 1301
Watch the entire video to The videos come in very handy Watch the whole video over and
understand all the content of what when you are reviewing for an over until I get full understanding of
is being viewed exam. You can go back after re‐ the concepts
reading the chapter and pick up on
the concepts you didn't quite
understand from the reading. And
also if you seem to have forgotten
something talked about in the
lecture it helps to refresh your
memory. It's a very good tool to
have for class.
Allows an easy review of current The videos can be used to further
and past information on particular reiterate concepts that were taught
topics. in the lecture.
Table 3. When to view VLC videos?
PSY 2301 BIO 3311 BIO 1301
Watch them before every quiz and You should always review the Don’t use them as a substitute for
test. Also take notes when watching course material before class. After coming to class! The videos are an
them. class watch the videos to excellent tool to refresh yourself,
comprehend something that you but you lose the opportunity to ask
may have had trouble with in class. questions or expand on topics if you
Also before exams you can use the aren’t in class.
videos to review the course
material.
15

16. If you are absent from a class and I believe the video lectures help the I think that students will benefit
you need to know what was most when students are absent. If more from the video if they expect
discussed the videos are very the day's lecture was missed one to learn something or have a idea
helpful. could get on the website and watch clarified, if you go in blind I believe
and listen to that specific lecture. you come out that way
I turn on the video lectures and After every lecture, watch the video.
listen to them while cleaning and It is really beneficial
doing other things.
Table 4. How to view VLC videos?
PSY 2301 BIO 3311 BIO 1301
When watching the videos be sure It is a good idea to review your View the videos and rewind to
to take notes and pay attention as if notes then watch the video then material that is significant to passing
you were in class to get an review your notes again to get a tests/quizzes
understanding of what is being said. good understanding of the material.
Take notes while watching the The videos would not be helpful to
video. I comprehended the material me unless I read the text and
better after attending the class and followed along the text with the
watching the videos before tests. power points and then review the
video for more understanding if I
still didn't clearly grasp the
information.
Correlation between student view of VLC and scores in related tests
CETL provided each faculty participating in the in‐depth study data from Panopto’s log system
concerning who viewed what recording and for how long. Faculty used this information and scores in
their grading system to find out if there were differences among students who effectively were
“viewers” and the rest of the class. These are the findings:
 In all three courses, students viewing videos systematically received better exam grades than
non‐viewers. In PSY 2301, performance improvements in non viewers and viewers comparing
final exam means to the previous exams means, were significantly different and I were in favor
of viewers. In BIO 3311, time spent by regular viewers of VLC lectures appeared to correlate well
with exam scores. In BIO 1301, differences between non‐viewers and viewers were not
significant. In all cases these positive results must be treated with caution since the number of
students who regularly viewed videos was relatively small, and thus further work is needed to
replicate this effect.
 Quiz comparison between viewers and non‐viewers did not show significant differences in PSY
2301 and BIO 1301.
16

17. From PSY 2301 data in Panopto log system, exams and quizzes
Dr. Adams assessed the effectiveness of VLC lecture by looking at differences among viewers and non‐
viewers who had signed informed consent forms. The overall results showed that among a small subset
of students who viewed videos, there was a clear sign of better performance on the final exam and on
the quizzes than among the non‐viewing students.
Analysis of exams in PSY 2301
Dr. Adams compared 38 students who did not view videos during the second half of the course versus 7
students who viewed some or all of relevant videos for the final exam. He found a significant difference
of means between non viewers (mean 70 pts, standard deviation of 14.8, standard error of 2.43) and
those students viewing videos (mean 83.9 pts, standard deviation of 6.0, standard error of 2.45); t test,
t(43) = 4.02, p < 0.001. He also contrasted improvements in non‐viewers and viewers comparing final
exam means to the mean of Exams 1 and 2 and found that improvements in non‐viewers was 1.94 with
standard deviation of 10.8 (standard error of 1.8) and that the improvement in viewers was 12.5 with a
standard deviation of 7.5, standard error 3,1. This comparison was significantly different, t(43) = 2.97, p
< 0.01.
Analysis of quizzes 5­8 in Psy2301
When each quiz was compared between viewers and non‐viewers there were no significant differences
for any quiz, although in each case the viewers had higher scores on an absolute basis.
Discussion of results in PSY2301
Dr. Adams mentioned that the above positive results must be treated with caution for at least two
reasons. First, the number of students who viewed videos was relatively small, and thus further work is
needed to replicate this effect. Second, the potential effect of general motivational factors cannot
separated out; it is possible that viewing students were more motivated in general and thus performed
better regardless of video watching.
From BIO3311 data in Panopto log system and exams
Dr. Overholt analyzed data from 39 individual students who watched videos in the Panopto system for a
total of 7719 minutes, and found that use of the system was dominated by 7 students who, combined,
watched 5528 minutes. This observation was used to establish a possible relationship between Panopto
use and exam scores.
Analysis of exams in BIO 3311
The following figure shows the average exam scores from the 7 regular VLC users compared to that of
the remaining students. First, it can be seen that the average exam scores for all 4 exams averaged over
12 points higher for the regular VLC users than the rest of the class. Second, it appears that as VLC use
increased for the regular users, exam scores increased. In contrast, the average exam scores fell off at
the end of the semester in the remainder of the students
17

18. 90 350
Non-users (n=32) Non-users (n=32)
Average Exam Scores (mean+/-SE)
85 Regular Panopto Users (n=7) 300 Panopto Users (n=7)
80 250
Minutes/Student
200
75
150
70
100
65
50
60
0
55
Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam 3 Exam 4 Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam 3 Exam 4
Figure 6. Average exam scores in Bio 3311, comparison viewers / Non viewers
The following figure plots the number of Panopto minutes viewed before each exam by each of the 7
individual regular Panopto users and their exam scores. The overall correlation between increasing use
of Panopto and exam scores can be seen as the red regression line derived from the plots of the 7
students. Interestingly, the minutes viewed by the regular users appeared to correlate very well with the
exam scores.
90
Exam Score (%)
80
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
70 Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Regression
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Panopto Minutes
Figure 7. Number of Panopto minutes viewed by “regular viewing” VLC videos students
Discussion of results in BIO 3311
While figure 6 shows that the 7 regular Panopto users had an average exam score over 12 points higher
than the rest of the class, this can be interpreted in at least 2 different ways. First, many times it is the
best students who take advantage of all available resources and this observation could skew the
statistics in favor of the Panopto users. This may be further supported by the fact that, even on exam 1,
when there was not much Panopto use, exam scores for the regular Panopto users was nearly 13 points
18

19. higher. However, looking at all of the data shows that, even for the regular Panopto users, exam scores
increased in parallel with Panopto use (see inset) and remained higher, while scores in the rest of the
class trended downward.
In conclusion, figures 6 and 7 suggest that VLC use improved student exam scores. Whether or not this
data is convincing, the most important things are: 1) student comments were unanimous in that they
really liked the new material and technology in the redesign; and 2) students used the material,
especially Panopto (7719 minutes). Perhaps it was expressed best by the student who commented: “I
have enjoyed his class a lot. The interactive learning was essential for my success in the class.”
From BIO 1301 data in Panopto log system, quizzes, and exams
Data captured in the Panopto log from seventeen videos recorded from Dr. Kump’s lectures were used
to analyze the impact of viewing videos on student related assessments. Results in exams 1 to 3 were
studied in regard with recording method 1 (live class sessions), results in exam 4 in regard with
recording method 3 (live segments of class sessions) and results in quizzes 1 and 7 in regard with
recording method 2 (pre‐recorded preparation for the quizzes).
Video capture usage
Of the eleven videos captured from lectures with method 1, each was accessed by an average of 9±2
individual students, with an average access time per student of 7±2 minutes each. Based on the number
of students enrolled in the course at the time each video was captured, an average of 10±0% of enrolled
students accessed each video. For method 2, two videos were designed to help students prepare for
quizzes. The first video was a two‐minute video that prepared students for quiz 1 and served to
introduce them to the Panopto system; 73% of the students watched the entire 2‐minute video and 13%
of the students watched only a portion of the video. The second video was a 16‐minute video that
prepared students for quiz number 7; 32% of students watched almost all the video, 24% watched part
of the video, and 44% did not watch the video at all. Of the four videos prepared with method 3, ranging
between 8 and 27 minutes each at an average of 17±5 minutes, an average of 11±1% of students
accessed the videos. The above low level of video usage was not surprising, as a review of Blackboard
reveals that only about half of the students accessed the course shell during any one‐week period.
Effect of video capture usage on exams and quizzes
Students who viewed VLC performed better in all exams, as shown in figure 8 below. However, a two‐
way Anova indicated that video watching accounted for less than 0.1% of variance in exam scores, with
the exams responsible for approximately 5% of the variance; there was no correlation between
watching videos and exam scores (p=0.59).
19

20.
Figure 8. Mean scores of students not watching video (white bars) and student watching video (black bars) for
each exam in BIO 1301.
Comparison of exam results between method 1 and method 3 show that the mean score for exams 1‐3
(66.5 ±1.0) was significantly lower than the mean for exam 4 (76.7 ±2.0). Considering that video usage
both with methods 1 and 3 was similarly low, this supports the idea of recording shorter and focalized
live videos rather than full class sessions.
A comparison of quiz scores between quizzes that had a preliminary video (quizzes 1 and 7, mean of
73.7 ±4.3) and those for which students were directed to their textbooks (quizzes 2‐6, and 8; mean 72.0
±1.0) shows that there is no difference in quiz scores when videos are used (p=0.21).
Discussion of results in BIO 1301
Student achievement and success ultimately depends upon what students do outside of the classroom.
High‐achieving students are typically those who spend the necessary time and effort outside of class
studying effectively. Effective study sessions include reviewing notes and studying the textbook.
Panopto offers an additional method for students to use their study time reviewing what was discussed
during class.
Based on survey results, students agreed that the captured videos were as effective as an instructional
technique; they also agreed that reviewing the captured videos helped them to learn and understand
the material. The exam results of video watchers seemed to be higher than those of non‐video viewers,
although there was not a significant statistical difference. This consensus and results, in the context of
the relative low usage of videos on a regular basis, raise significant and important questions, not only
concerning Panopto, but regarding the motivation for students studying outside of the classroom. It may
be that students only turn to videos for further help with a specific concept, using them as a supplement
to more traditional methods.
20

21. Lessons learned from VLC experience
Instructors participating in the in‐depth studies shared their insights concerning the processes and
products obtained. Through interviews it was established that:
1. All of the instructors found Panopto’s VLC system easy to use, independently of whether they
were recording live or out‐of‐class. Setting up the system for recording required a few minutes
of technology preparation, and video uploading and sharing was straight forward.
2. Dr. Adams found that recording lectures in front of the camera and without audience helped
him develop verbal fluency delivering multimedia messages. He recommends this experience to
colleagues who may feel uncomfortable and shy away from the idea of being videotaped.
3. Dr. Adams wonders how to expand the impact of videos on students learning: if some students
clearly benefitted from watching videos, how can the entire class be engaged in this process?
He believes that tailoring videos to student needs has shown to be an alternative to keeping
students’ initial motivation towards video viewing. He considers that making the video setting
more attractive than his office could be another path to explore.
4. Dr. Overholt found that course redesign with technology is easy and effective, but it requires
careful design, setup, and technology testing to overcome problems that might arise. He
integrated several technologies into his course, including clickers, practice digital quizzes,
games, and Panopto. These tools helped recording live and sharing online in‐class discussions
and in‐lab student presentations. Data collected suggest that Panopto usage improved users’
exam scores, and the overall course redesign improved student performance in class, engaging
them as active learners.
5. Dr. Kump considers that Panopto should be used to record short topic‐specific videos that
supplement students in their personal study after thoroughly reviewing their lecture notes and
assigned material from the text. If he were to redesign the course he would like to find ways to
motivate students to view those videos. Panopto is a tool that students can use outside of the
classroom to go back and review material; it is not a substitute for the textbook or study notes.
Panopto is a supplement; it is not the only tool available to understand concepts, but any tools
are only effective if students use them.
21

22. Conclusions and recommendations
The use of video lecture capture to enhance teaching can be very productive when students review
video recordings on a regular basis; finding the way to intrinsically motivate students to benefit from
video recordings seems to be the great challenge that faculty might have using VLC systems. Data
collected in this study suggest that students who regularly viewed videos to supplement other media
available in their courses got better exam results than students who did not view videos, although this
fact did not always show with significant differences to non‐viewers. However, impact on quiz’ results
was not evident. On the other hand, the amount of time reviewing video lectures seemed to matter, as
it appeared to correlate with exam scores in one of the courses. What, when, and how to view the
recordings also seemed to make a difference, as suggested by student feedback. Generalized student
opinions about the convenience of video lecture capture as a supplement to other media used in their
courses can be attributed to important reasons mentioned by respondents concerning why it was worth
viewing recorded lectures. Also, high opinion of students about VLC may be explained by the way VLC
was integrated in the course, as it is evident in BIO 3311, where active learning before, during, and after
class activities served to improve overall student performance.
Based on this experience and on the literature review findings, we provide the following
recommendations to potential users of VLC systems:
1. Before making a decision concerning the use of Panopto to provide supplemental instruction in
your course, play with the system and analyze what features could be useful in your case.
Panopto has basic options (voice and screen image capture) and also advanced features (video
capture, annotate presentation). You can share full class sessions on the Internet, or segments
of class sessions (you can edit recordings) for students to view using a web browser. You can
also share voice cast (MP3 files) and/or video cast (MP4 files) for students to download and view
with appropriate digital players. Depending on course needs, set up Panopto at your
convenience.
2. When you have recognized that Panopto’s features are worth using to offer out‐of‐class
supplemental instruction to your students, try to establish what the best way to use Panopto in
each selected course may be. The following elements are worth considering:
a. You can record live (in class) or out‐of‐class (pre‐ or post‐class). The key element is to
add value to students’ experience, and this deals with capturing things that go beyond
what is already available on other media (text, power points, handouts). Live class
sessions, or segments, were found relevant as long as they captured discussions or
interaction that clarified key points, and/or allowed students to review explanations
about concepts when they were preparing for exams or quizzes. Pre‐quiz recordings
were considered useful as long as teachers said things that students may have missed
and that might be on a test or quiz. Post‐class recordings about specific topics were
found useful as long as professors went into details, helping students to understand
difficult concepts.
b. You can upload either the whole recording, or segments of it to the VLC server. First,
you let the system convert the information to screen cast format and later on the
22

23. corresponding URL can be published; Secondly, you should use Panopto’s editor and
select what you want students to be focused on. You can also delete segments of the
discussion that deal with privacy issues or that have dead time recordings. Remember
that Panopto allows students to search by using key words, notes, time stamps, or
thumb nails; with these features students have direct access to the segments of their
interest.
3. Be sure that your students know how to use digital resources that you generate or allocate from
VLC recordings. Take the following suggestions into consideration:
a. In spite of the fact that many students are computer literate, novices in the use of
Panopto (or any other VLC system) will need induction to the system. Demonstrate the
system in your classroom with a video projector, and/or conduct a hands‐on experience
session at a computer lab once you have a VLC session available. Be sure that students
learn how to get access to VLC lessons you have captured, how to adjust the screen
(zoom in/out), and how to search by topic, note, time stamp, or thumb nails. Taking
notes while reviewing a lesson is an important feature; be sure to demo it. If you want
students to download and use MP3 (audio files) or MP4 (video files) from their mobile
devices, include a demo introductory session of this as well.
b. Video lectures should be available in a very simple and direct way. Panopto allows
sharing the link to VLC recordings through a direct link generated with Panopto’s feature
from your LMS activity editor. MP3 and MP4 files should be downloadable directly from
the Panopto server. You can get the links posted in your learning management system
for students to download. Students can also subscribe to your Panopto folder feeds
using the corresponding RSS link.
4. Finally, but not least important, be sure to comply with privacy, copyright / intellectual property
issues. If you are using graphics, images, and/or audio/video clips available on Internet, obtain
copyright clearance if these items are copyrighted, or use the Creative Commons license
attributes when applicable. If your VLC will include student contributions (e.g., presentations,
responses or questions), you should ask students to sign a consent form when the podcast
audience is broader than the class itself; however, when the podcast is put on a secured website
for only class to view, no release is required.
23

24. Works Cited
Adams, N., & Galvis, A. H. (2010). After‐class recorded videos to supplement instruction in General
Psychology. Winston‐Salem, NC: WSSU ‐ CETL (multimedia).
Boufford, B. (2009, May 15). Don’t be a Talking Head: Presentation capture not lecture... Retrieved June
12, 2010, from Ask Dr. C's ‐ ADC Blog:
http://blogs.elearning.ualberta.ca/wpmu/ecast/2009/05/15/dont‐be‐a‐talking‐head‐
presentation‐capture‐not‐lecture‐capture/
Educause. (2008, December). 7 things you should know about.. Lecture Capture. Retrieved June 12,
2010, from Educause Learning Initiative: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7044.pdf
Galvis, A. H. (2009, May). Establishing a PLACE for teaching technologies. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from
Google sites: http://sites.google.com/site/placetools/
Galvis, A. H., Hall, N., & Toppin, I. (2009). Video Lecture‐Capture (VLC) Initiative. Winston‐Salem, NC:
WSSU ‐ Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
Hall, N. (2009). Video lecture capture initiative: summer pilot final report. Winston‐Salem, NC: Winston‐
Salem State University,Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
Hall, N. (2010). Video lecture capture initiative ‐ Fall 2009 initiative report . Winston‐Salem, NC: Winston‐
Salem State University, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
Kump, D., & Galvis, A. H. (2010). Video‐enhanced Learning in a Challenging Biology course. Winston‐
Salem, NC: WSSU ‐ CETL (multimedia).
Overholt, J. L., & Galvis, A. H. (2010). Redesign of BIO 3311, Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology,
and accompanying Lab (BIO 3111). Winston‐Salem, NC: WSSU ‐ CETL (multimedia).
Panopto. (2008). Case Study. Lecture 2.0: Suffolk University implements CourseCast to enrich tradicional
and virtual classroom experience. Boston, MA: Suffolk University.
Schaffhauser, D. (2009, June 10). Campus Technology 2009. Retrieved July 03, 2010, from Lecture
Capture Is Getting Campuses Talking:
http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/06/10/Lecture‐capture‐is‐getting‐campuses‐talking
Toppin, I. (2009). Student perceptions of the impact of using Video Lecture Capture. Winston‐Salem, NC:
WSSU ‐ Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
WSSU. (2010). Achieving academic distinction: The plan for student success. Winston‐Salem State
University: WSSU, Office of the Chancellor.
24