8.4 Creating Value In Livestreamed Lectures

Creating Value In Livestreamed Lectures SoT-8-4-CreatingValue

Above and beyond 'value' is necessary. Not just 'ok'.
'Value' that cannot be easily found elsewhere.
Value has to be relatable and personal.

Without added value, why bother?

Why worry about attendance in a livestreamed lecture? In some cases, it can be argued that there is little added value in livestreaming versus well prepared videos that students can watch at their leisure. How often have you said or heard a colleague say something like 'No one is attending my livestream lectures!'. Is value being provided? Is there a reason to attend?

We are not talking about the livestream lectures which do not make sense to be livestreamed in the first place. There are those in abundance. We are talking about the lectures worthy of being livestreamed.

We are talking about:

The lectures where the potential for better learning occurs, where insights and interpretations can be provided, and where students can do things like think, pair, share using an online platform. Where they can have experiences.
The lectures where the instructor is trying to provide the extra value, but it is not working. The students are still not attending and are missing the good stuff.

To avoid writing a hefty tome, we will make a few assumptions. We will assume...

That the lectures to be delivered live actually make sense to be delivered live with respect to the type of topic and what it takes to truly understand the topic,
That the instructor does not plan to simply read from notes, read the slides, etc.
That the course is not just at the simple comprehension level with memorization, fact regurgitation, and algorithmic recitation with little advanced comprehension or cognitive complexity.
That the instructor understands how to use the online learning platform.

Perhaps the most important question any instructor can ask is ‘what is the difference for the student between attending the livestreaming session versus watching the videos later?’ .

What is learned in one versus the other? Is it the potential for insightful Q&A from the class during the lecture? Perhaps; if there is substantial dialog and the Q&A is more than what could be accomplished by the students replaying the video. Assuming that there are online office hours and Q&A sessions, suggesting that sufficient added-value in livestreaming comes from the students asking questions during the live session to justify attendance, is not enough. Furthermore, if the students have to look at the videos anyway, replay portions, etc., as part of their study routine, why not just directly go to that point, with the potential benefit of playing portions of the lecture at higher speeds? The students’ livestreaming environment might also not be adequate in all cases (noise, sharing a space, distractions) and an extra effort might be needed to do a quality livestreaming attendance.

It comes down to the value proposition and the cost/benefit analysis. Why sit through a livestreamed lecture? We have often thought about this and have discussed it. We have taught online, livestreamed courses with weekly attendance over 90% for the term. The classes were taped, so the students could have just watched the videos eventually. Why did the students attend? There were no marks for attendance and no attendance officially taken.

We believe that any live lecture has the potential for learning value above and beyond the video format. It does not come from the mere fact of livestreaming though, and it takes effort and thought. It matters what the students believe and experience. Do they recognize the potential value, and do they get it?

Here are some observations:

Livestreaming sessions should adhere to as many of the best practice suggestions as possible for quality delivery of the basic material itself; cadence, quality technology utilized, suitable change-ups/breaks, etc. If the livestreaming session is painful to watch and/or listen to, the students will go the video route and fast-forward you! Furthermore, if they find little real value, they will increase the speed or not bother - just memorize from the handouts.
Make some of the material contextually interesting and relevant so that the students look forward to something that is better to experience live than via tape. There is the ‘in the moment’ emotional and group feeling that can occur in livestreaming that is not possible with scattered and random video viewing. Learning should be social, even via technology!
Have active learning be part of the lecture where the students have the opportunity to learn/experience something (not just write down what can be read elsewhere, not just memorize) and have a chance to test their understanding.
Provide suitable reflection and debriefing so that the students know what was learned and what was not learned. You don’t learn from you experiences, you learn from reflecting on your experiences.
Create one or two moments in the lecture where it is clear that they just experienced something and learned something that they would not have learned if they just watched the video. This type of live, experiential learning is difficult to do with video.
Have virtual teams or breakout sessions during the lecture so that the students can meet and interact with other students – almost like a real classroom. Make sure you pop into the different breakout rooms to hear about their discussions – it's not a time for a coffee break ;)

There are different ways to create value in a class. Below are examples of how active learning was created in an online course.

In one class, the first part of the lecture might have looked like:

We would have started the lecture with a short ‘question’ or problem to think about; giving the students approximately 5-7 minutes to work alone.
The students would then join with another student for 5-7 min and discuss their work. They had tomerge into one submission and how they made this decision. The students would be randomly assigned their partners each week, avoiding repeats.
At both points, after individual and after pairs, the submissions would be uploaded to the online platform. If the problem was a bit more challenging, the process would be repeated with teams of four.
Then there would be a debrief, asking various people to share their results, general discussion with the class.
Following this would be the lecture component about how to do it better, how to think about it, a different approach to the problem based on science, systematic thinking, etc. This can also be the method for teaching new lecture material; whatever.

The above would take about ½ of the lecture to get through. The other half of the lecture would often look like the following.

The students would be given a new challenge or the same one. If the same one, they are asked to do it again, but this time, use what was just taught or explained.
Again, the individual, pairing, and potentially larger team groupings were used.

Part of the second challenge was to compare the “how” (process) and the “what” (outcome) with the first exercise.
Followed by yet another 5-10 minute debrief, discussion about what occurred; pulling in various members of the class to discuss and share.

Subtle bits...

Typically, hand raising was not used for the discussions; it would be the instructor directly asking or “cold calling” on groups. I.e.,”Group 5 – please share what you have” and someone from the team would eventually share to the whole class.
The problem or challenge often was used to illustrate their baseline knowledge and how they would tackle the challenge/problem. This allowed the instructor to assess how the students would approach the problem without the instructor's intervention; to see the students' starting point. The problem can come from the previous lecture's summative outcome. It can also come from an assigned problem or pre-read for the class.
The groups were random for the first ½ of the course, and then held somewhat steady for the last half so that students would work more than once with another student.

Summary reflections...

The above strategy allowed the students to try first, see what they could do without learning anything new. Then, discuss, justify and rationalize with other students on what the answer might be (and why). Then learn something new and have a chance to use it and see how well they could do.
Often, the problems or challenges each week were designed to build on the previous weeks, allowing for the knowledge to be used in a scaffolding way. Which also allowed the students to deliberately practice and understand their understanding.
These activities cannot be done in a coached way if pre-made videos are used. Not possible. This was the added value. The students loved to learn and loved to know they were learning. Every lecture there was an Ahaa! moment. With ‘silent movies’, there is no excitement, no activity, and no social contact. This is what students value though. As part of the course, weekly reflections were submitted and we were able to hear from the students about the engagement and why they valued the livestreaming sessions.
Without added value, why bother?