1. Recording short student presentations with the use of lecture capture software (Panopto). Marco Arkesteijn maa36@aber.ac.uk

2.  Student engagement  Practical relevance can be missing with lecture content ◦ Relevant content can promote deep learning  Screencasting offers opportunities for different learning styles The present project will focus on a ‘hot topic’ in biomechanics; students will create a short video detailing their view and related arguments on barefoot running.

3. The aims of the present project were to: - develop a student’s skills in literature resourcing - evaluation and interpretation of ‘information’ - communication of their views with substantiated arguments.  Evaluation of the students’ experiences during 2013-2014 (cohort 1) and 2014-2015 (cohort 2)

4.  2 hour practical “Is barefoot running best?”  Independent working in small groups (3-4 students) ◦ Information resourcing consisted of scientific literature, but also the ‘internet’. ◦ Provide arguments from different perspectives ◦ Evaluate and concluding opinion  Product: a short video

5.  Compared to cohort 1 1.Panopto available, replacing the screen being recorded with video 2.Prior information about topic of the practical, provided during preceding lecture

6.  Lecture capture software installed on computers in practical laboratory ◦ Microphones from Information Services  Students record, gets uploaded to Abercast automatically  Edit if required, and combine all recordings for the lecture within Abercast ◦ More efficient than combining videos (cohort 1)

7.  Install software + obtain microphones  Student records presentation, automatically uploaded

8.  Edit if required within AberCast and combine videos

9.  Videos were combined and shown in lecture ◦ Interspersed with YouTube videos by ‘experts’.  Questionnaire administered following the lecture ◦ ‘overall impression’, ‘video’, ’time allowed’, ‘learning style’, ‘knowledge gained’, ‘assessment’, and ‘impact’.  Five item Likert scale, strongly disagree  strongly agree ◦ Two open questions: “I liked” & “I would have changed”

10.  Eleven (cohort 1) and seven (cohort 2) videos were produced ◦ In cohort 2, two groups did not complete their project  Around 25 minutes of video in both cohorts ◦ Lecture: interspersed with ‘expert’ talks from YouTube  Majority of videos of powerpoint + commentary ◦ 3 videos showed ‘people’  Thirty-eight (cohort 1) and thirty (cohort 2) questionnaires completed

11. Blue = cohort 1 Red = cohort 2

19.  Overall, students showed a positive attitude ◦ Some exceptions “we didn't have time to do proper research so most information came from google. It felt like a complete waste of time, learned nothing new. For £9000 of tuition fees a year, it was a 2hr practical wasted and insulting that our lecture was used to show us a bunch of average videos. 3hrs of potential teaching gone to waste.” (cohort 1 comment) “The fact that I learned about barefoot running in a more fun and interactive method rather than your standard lecture” The topic chosen was one I'm interested in, so I enjoyed researching it Having fun whilst learning

20.  Freedom was perceived as a positive ◦ Exploratory learning was ‘novel’  Enjoyable topic ◦ Thus it is unlikely to work with ‘non-hot topics’  Shorter videos than anticipated  Informal nature, should not be assessed  Cohort 2 generally more positive than cohort 1 ◦ Less hesitant about presenting with Panopto ◦ Better prepared

21.  Improvements to be made 1.More focus on video creation process 1.More professional? Cadarn involvement? 2.Alternatives? (Powerpoint only, or infographics) 2.Not showing of videos during the lecture 3.Allocation of specific foci related to barefoot running (performance/injury)  Limitations ◦ No assessment of learning

22.  Enjoyment of exploratory learning  More assistance with video material ◦ Reluctance to present Using a hot topic can be an effective way for students to create the module contents

23. Do you have any questions? Marco Arkesteijn maa36@aber.ac.uk