Lecture Capture Policy Framework at Warwick University

Lecture Capture Policy Framework at Warwick University

Lecture Capture Policy Framework at Warwick University

  1. Entities
  2. The Institution
  3. Institutional partners: Monash? CUSP? California?
  4. Staff
  5. Non-staff presenters
  6. With Warwick accounts??
  7. Without Warwick accounts??
  8. Students
  9. Non-registered students
  10. Public[TA1]
  1. Definition of lecture capture
  2. Pre-recorded video/audio made available to students as course materials
  3. In-session recording (auto-scheduled)
  4. In-session recording (manually recorded by staff)
  5. In-session recording (manually recorded by students)
  6. Post-session video/audio made available to students as course materials
  1. Scope of this policy
  2. In-session recording only?
  3. Staff recording only? Not feasible to exclude - needs to include student recording as per existing policy
  4. Recordings made with echo360 only? with auto-scheduling only? Not sensible – technologies will change over time
  5. Live streaming?
  6. Captions/transcriptions?
  1. Tools relevant to this policy
  2. Echo360 automated scheduling system for large teaching rooms
  3. Echo360 personal capture
  4. Planet estream
  5. Sitebuilder
  6. Moodle
  7. Non-ITS managed solutions: jing? periscope? Youtube? Perhaps need a catch-all clause[TA2]
  1. Rights relevant to this policy – and why the policy and institutional platforms need things like waivers, acceptance of liability, consents to store and move content containing rights etc[TA3]
  2. Copyright of original works created by Warwick academics[TA4]
  3. Copyright of third party content
  4. In relation to educational exemptions for content used within an authenticated education environment[TA5]
  5. In relation to educational use
  6. In non-educational contexts
  7. Performers rights of presenters
  8. Data protection of discussion participants
  9. Institutional reputation considerations: libel, slander etc
  1. Access arrangements relevant to this policy
  2. Platforms
  3. the access-controlled VLE
  4. other university platforms
  5. non-university platforms
  6. Audiences
  7. Within the module There may be a desire to lock access to modules but this carries a significant admin/complexity overhead and isn’t sustainable
  8. Within the department There may be a desire to lock access to modules but this carries a significant admin/complexity overhead and isn’t sustainable
  9. Within the university
  10. Selected partner organisations
  11. Public
  12. with Registration
  13. Open (no Registration)
  14. Timescales
  15. Embargos – delays before captures are available
  16. Retention periods – expected duration to store
  17. Currently 2 years but not enforced
  18. Options beyond the retention period
  1. Appropriate use of lecture capture technologies[TA6]
  2. Benefits of lecture capture are:
  3. listen/watch again to check understanding
  4. listen/watch again for revision
  5. reasonable adjustments
  6. etc
  7. Lecture capture technologies should be used with respect for
  8. academic’s rights
  9. student’s privacy
  10. institutional reputation
  11. Lecture capture technologies may not be appropriate when
  12. etc
  13. etc
  14. etc
  1. Reasonable adjustments[TA7]
  2. Students with a declared requirement for reasonable adjustments
  3. have a right for their request (for the academic to record the lectures) to be considered
  4. may be within their rights to make their own recordings in the absence of an academic-led recording
  5. may require access sooner than a departmental embargo period
  6. may require transcripts or captions[TA8]
  1. Department-specific policies
  2. Departments may declare additional terms/encouragement, as long as it does not contradict the terms of this institution-wide policy[TA9]
  1. Instruments of the policy – taken alongside the configuration of ITS-managed platforms, these constitute the implementation of the policy into practice. Each of these documents should be centrally held.
  2. Presenter consent form (for echo360 only? or extend?)
  3. Copyright liability acceptance – definition and explanation
  4. Performers rights waiver – definition and explanation
  5. Clearance of participant permissions - may need further guidance??
  6. Process for non-staff presenters
  7. Notice and takedown procedure
  8. Process in case of disputes
  9. Statement on circumstances where capture is not appropriate
  10. This could be revised every year

[TA1]This is where the marketing/public engagement angle might come in. Could consult with comms/emily little on having appropriate clauses in here to signpost to relevant guidance?

[TA2]I suggest I brief the Policy Review Group on these tools. Maybe a 10 minute session.

[TA3]Perhaps this also needs an education piece about why technical systems need explicit contributor agreements. Me? Simon?

[TA4]This definitely needs a statement on the contractual situation regarding “curriculum materials” and “teaching resources”. The group may wish to advocate for the contracts to be modernised but that change won’t happen within the timeframe of this policy review

[TA5]I suggest that someone (Simon? Yvonne Budden?) briefs the Policy Review Group on the 2012 changes. Maybe a written briefing plus discussion.

[TA6]This is firmly within the scope of AQSC and would be a key focus of the consultation with AQSC (the parent committee for this review)

[TA7]This is within the scope of the DSA working group and we will need to consult with them

[TA8]I may need to provide the group with details of how this would work and the cost implications, which would likely fall to departments to administer even if there was a central subsidy.

[TA9]This suggests to me that we need to identify the lead authority to sign-off departmental policy. Should it be Chair of TELSG, or a PVC or a senior officer?

Top View