Video Podcasting (Vodcasting) Equipment

I guess I was always looking for an excuse to buy a camcorder. I always wanted one that would record onto a digital format, whether hard-drive or flash memory card, and be instantly transferable to a computer.

The MA finally gave me the excuse, however thin that excuse might be. I decided to take the plunge and buy a Sony Handycam DCR-SR75E with a 60GB Hard-drive. It’s records up to 41 hours of standard definition and came with a 90-minute lithium-ion battery as standard. It’s loaded with features. Cost was €328.87 + VAT from dabs4work.ie.

It became apparent once I got it that if I was going to do interviews and record tutorials, the camera on its own was not going to be enough. Where was I supposed to put it? On a shelf, hold it in my hand? So, obviously a tripod was required.

Also, the thing about a camcorder as standard like that is you are stuck with a limited field of view. For recording in a room full of people, a wide angle lens was going to be needed.

And while 90 minutes of battery is going to be fine most of the time, and I’ll usually have access to mains power, there are going to be occasions where I’m going to need a lot more - especially when there is the capability to hold 41 hours of footage! An extra capacity battery was a must.

I ordered the Sony VCT-60AV tripod (€74.41 + VAT), which has remote control and is compatible with my SR75E. I also ordered the VCL-HA07A wide-angle conversion lens (€50.16 + VAT) and the NP-FH70 lithium ion battery (€72.74 + VAT) with up to 4.5 hours. That plus the standard battery gives me up to 6 hours on the go.

And here is the final setup:

And a close up of that wide-angle lens:

A remote control means I can start and stop recordings and zoom in/out from a distance. A fully motorised tripod was a little outside my budget… maybe next time.

A few refinements to my place at Second Life

I knocked off the top two floors to save on prims, but the elevator was left sticking up and I had no roof. I decided that the third floor elevator stop would now be the roof and the old fourth floor stop would be an observation deck made of glass. I’m left with the problem that the lift will only open for me and not others on the roof and observation deck, so I’ll need to allow flying on my land if I want the roof to be accessed. Maybe I can add some sort of stairs in the future.

Pretty cool I think.

The top floor is my training facility. One large training room (see below) and a smaller one. Notice how the large training room has bean bags for informal group discussions and chairs and whiteboard for more formal training. The smaller training room has a conference table and some chairs for a different feel again.

Pretty impressive stuff, I think.

My place at SecondLife

Here I am looking at my new office block in SecondLife followed by the view from the lift on the fourth floor:

"My" Office Block

And the spectacular view from the Top floor!

I’ll upload more once I get some furniture and gardens in place. I might even add a few inspirational pictures on the wall. And I’ll post up more about what I script, particular anything of pedagogical note.

SecondLife Research

Well, I’ve only gone and bought land in SecondLife. A whole virtual 2,560sqm to be precise in a nice PG neighbourhood. Cost me a whopping L$12,000 or about €45 and will be about €12 a month in land use fees. I think it’s worth it to be able to play around and research the possibilities of the technology as much as I want. I have added a link to the land to the right of this page (with the inSL logo). Feel free to drop by. There’s nothing there as I write this, but there might be soon. Can’t guarantee there will always be access… who knows, I might be giving an interview or a tutorial!

Now onto learning SLS - SecondLife Scripting. I’ve programmed in more than a dozen languages over the years, so I’m sure it’ll be easy to pick up the syntax - just not sure how I’ll get on with actually applying the code.

Roger’s Ideal Types - my thoughts

I will discuss Roger’s ideal types (from his book Diffusions of Innovation) in response to two questions:

Do Rogers’ categories correspond with your experience of people’s attitudes to innovation?

These are certainly five categories I recognise. I often fall into the category of innovator and early adopter. I was in the first 1,000 people in Ireland to get DSL broadband years back, so that makes me an early adopter. There are many cases, though, where I am an early majority person. I generally wait until one or two revisions of software has been released before adopting it in a business context. But in a personal context, I would definitely be an early adopter because the risk is much less.

So, that makes me wonder about whether the categories can be as rigid as Roger’s and whether the risk element must first be taken into account… early adopter when financial risk is low, early majority when risk is higher.

What about level of education or exposure to the world? If a 60-year-old man, who has never used a computer, doesn’t get Satellite/Cable TV, is he a laggard? Or does he just not have any concept of what it is or its benefits? Maybe if he is a farmer and he comes up with a new way to make his hay last longer, he can be very innovative. In that way he is an innovator despite the fact that a technologist might see him as a laggard.

While recognising Roger’s ideal types, I believe they are a tad 2-dimensional. You need to add the 3rd dimension… context. I know people who write academic books and papers like to come up with nice models (guilty as charged!), but it’s not always that simple.

How far can you apply his model to a context you know – a current or past place of work, or a less formal situation? For example, can you link it to an innovation in elearning?

One context, in terms of elearning, was about 3 years ago when I used my web-site to host materials that were delivered in class when I was a part-time lecturer with University College, Cork teaching MIS532. This included powerpoint presentations, posting of assignment results, sample exam questions, notices, etc. Certainly, this was not particularly innovative and this had been done for years previously, but I would guess in the context I was in, in quite an old-fashioned, traditional university, I was at least in the early majority, if not going quite as far as an early adopter.

With the idea I have about vodcasting and sharing in a private group afterwards to include those with disabilities, I guess that I am an early adopter - it’s not innovative, just look at the case study on podcasting for archaeology. But I’ll have some fun doing it - and no doubt a few technical hitches.

I will be Vodcasting - how innovative?

I study another course… A215 - Creative Writing - an undergraduate course I will link to a Diploma in Literature and Creative Writing at some point.

We have a day school in Galway on 25th April and I have offered to bring a camcorder along so that I can record vodcasts where we discuss each others’ ECAs (end of course assessments) and also discuss the ECAs of those unable to attend the day school.

For those unfamiliar with vodcasts, they are like podcasts, only incorporating video and sound… video podcasting if you like.

Is this innovative? Am I an early adopter or an early majority type? Does the context (discussion of fiction / poetry for the benefit of those present and those unable to attend - such as one student who has M.E.) make it innovative? Will what I do with the vodcasts afterwards determine how innovative I am?

What about issues like privacy? I wonder will any co-students be worried about being filmed? I can’t just put it on Youtube… I have to post it somewhere private to a group. There must be video sharing sites that allow this. Wouldn’t it be great if the OU VLE had this facility (although imagine the storage requirements!)?

I’ve just invested in a Sony camcorder with a 60GB hard-drive that can store 41 hours of standard definition footage… any old excuse to buy a new gadget I suppose.

H807 Case Study - Use of a VLE to support placement students on Westminster Hull Internship Programme (WHIP) (University of Hull)

This post will review the case study by University of Hull - Use of a VLE to support placement students on Westminster Hull Internship Programme.

Background

University of Hull (UH) had an existing VLE called Merlin, which was used by on-campus students, including the students who were placed in Westminster in a previous semester. The VLE was not new to the students, so a lot of the training had already taken place.

Pedagogical reasons

The primary aim was to cut down on administration. Before the enhancements to the VLE, administrators had to contact interns individually by post or phone. After the enhancements, interns could log in to a central VLE where they could view announcements, emails, and submit assessments.

Issues encountered

There seemed to be a disparity between how seriously on-campus students and interns took the VLE. On-campus students seemed to heed announcements and deadlines more than interns - possibly due to the disconnect interns felt from their ultimate goal of passing modules to gain a BA.

Feedback /  measurements

Average grades improved. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the system was well received by the interns.

Feasibility

There appears to have been an analysis of current processes, which were manual and repetitive in nature. When deciding on where to implement the new VLE features, Blacboard was initially considered, because it is used elsewhere on campus, however, it was felt that Merlin was less complicated for the student and more personalisable. It was also envisaged that Merlin would be used for future MA modules that were being rolled out, perhaps leading to some reuse of the effort expended in the WHIP enhancements.

Tangible benefits

• Improved grades
• Enhanced reputation of the internship programme
• Reduction in administration
• An online community of current and graduated interns supporting each other

Final thoughts

To look at this from a hard pure innovation perspective, this project was not hugely innovatice.  The most innovative aspect is the integration of interns into the university by way of an online community, and the support offered by graduates who have already been through the internship is particularly valuable and innovative. What I can say with confidence is that the enhancements to Merlin were progressive and obviously beneficial in terms of cost, reputation, and improved learning.

H807 Case Study Review - Simulation gaming in Business (University of Glamorgan)

This post will review the case study by University of Glamorgan - Simulation gaming in Business.

Pedagogical reasoning for the project

This project came about from the recognition that students had difficulty conceptualising case studies showing the differences in small and larger businesses. Given the profile of the majority of the students (19 - 20 years old), it probably is not unexpected that their lack of real-world business experience might lead to this issue. In coming from this point of view, University of Glamorgan were looking at this from a pedagogical perspective.

They decided on an immersive approach, so that students could interact with a case study and be more engaged and visually see the differences between smaller and larger businesses. The idea of having a game with a scoring system at its core was seen as a way that students might become further engaged in the learning process.

Technology

Rather than use an existing tool for 3D game development, they developed a bespoke engine called TileWorld, which allows for the development of 3D environments based on tiles, much like a grid. There was significant upfront development time (3 months of academic staff time and 6 months of multimedia developer time), but they envisage recouping the time spent as further projects are rolled out and require much less upfront development time.

By storing data in XML files, it is possible for non-technical staff to update the conversations in the game, etc. Subsequent projects have used a web interface and database to make editing of data much easier.

I tried the simulation at http://e-st.glam.ac.uk/simulationgames/GameSim_1.htm and while it is fairly basic and pedestrian by the standards of most 3D games that we have become accustomed to, it is certainly engaging enough that I can see the advantages of it over a pure text-based case study. One thing I found very amusing was the ability to overhear conversations while sitting on a toilet - and it looks like you are just sitting in this unisex toilet cubicle with no door, while your trousers are around your ankles…

Stakeholders

A number of stakeholders got involved in the project, with academic staff (with the assistance of e-learning editors) responsible for content, game design was led by the academic and multimedia developer together with the support of a instructional designer, and beta testing involved students, IT helpdesk staff, and academic staff. It appears there was a lot of buy-in with this project.

Implementation and Training

One bit of foresight they had was to develop a short training level. Before the students were expected to begin the simulation in earnest, there was a tutorial in-class where the training level was demonstrated and each student could access the training level later at home or in a laboratory.

Feedback / measurements

A questionnaire filled in by students provided feedback on the level of satisfaction and perceived usefulness as a teaching tool. Overall satisfaction and the perceived benefits of the tool came in with a 75%+ approval or strong approval rating for the simulation tool.

A minority of students expressed the view that they were not very impressed with the graphics, etc, but that is t0 be expected when comparing against nextgen games consoles and first-person perspective shooters like Call of Duty 4.

It is not fully clear from the case study whether the initial pedagogical goal was reached, i.e. to give students a better understaning of the differences between small and large businesses, but it would seem from anecdotal evidence, questionnaries and comments, that the goal was reached. Whether exam results are improved by the game is unclear.

Feasibility

I would have liked more detail on whether there was a feasibility study. Spending 6 months developing a new engine is a lot of effort. Did they know it would take 6 months? Did they explore and rule out other game engines (of which there are many)? Did they incorporate a detailed cost-benefit analysis into their study - were the subsequent virtual hospital and campus induction simulations an expected occurrence, i.e. was it anticipated that the software would be reused and did they have early buy-in from other courses / faculties that they would use the engine?

Final Comments

I was impressed by the engine and the simulation produced. It’s easy to imagine a whole host of scenarios that the engine can handle and if they can reduce the amount of involvement required from the multimedia team, so that academics can design and deliver simulations by themselves, then there will be a truly innovative and pedagogically sound product. Gaming is an area of eLearning that I am particularly interested in, so I found this to be a very useful case study.

H807 Case Study Review - Use of podcasting in Archaeology (Swansea University)

This post will review the case study by Swansea University - Use of Podcasting in Archaeology.

The first point I will make is that when images or video accompany a voice, the term vodcasting is often used. Obviously this is short for video podcasting.

In the previous case study, The Virtual Farm, an issue addressed by the implementation of the virtual farm was the lack of time available to students to travel to the physical farms. In archaeology, this same point is even more important - it is not practical to ship 100+ students around the world to see everything. Obviously, it is worth students going on occasional field trips to places like Athens or Rome, but only so much can be covered. Vodcasts, such as the ones copyrighted by David Gill, are the next best thing. They certainly beat the traditional photo with text.

While the idea of vodcasts to support learning material isn’t hugely innovative, the idea that students might somehow engage in a Youtube-type effort so that they could record their own trips to archaeologically interesting sites and share with fellow students and lecturers, is quite innovative. I don’t think this was fully achieved in the case study, but by using the public Youtube.com web-site, students were able to post their own videos. Incorporating the ability for students to post vodcasts in the university’s VLE would be innovative.

Unlike the virtual farm case study, there were some measurable tangible results in the form of improved grades, particularly in questions where recognition of images was required.

Other interesting points from the case study:

• While modern museums are designed with accessibility in mind, people with mobility difficulties would find it difficult to access some ancient sites where the disabled were never taken into account when they were built. A vodcast is the closest thing to bringing them to the site. Accessibility is a major topic in eLearnig and vodcasts can help to bring a level of equality so that the disabled are not too disadvantaged by being unable to visit sites.
• Staff members who made the vodcast were forced to think as they were recording images and voice, so that personal observations were improved ‘on the fly’.

There is no doubt that tailored vodcasts are indispensible as re-usable learning objects.

H807 Case Study Review - The Virtual Farm (Edinburgh University)

This post will review the case study of the University of Edinburgh’s “The Virtual Farm”, which is a collection of technology-based resources embedded within ‘The Virtual Veterinary Practice’, part of a VLE (EEVeC) that supports the Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine & Surgery (BVM&S) programme.

Edinburgh University has two working farms, one dairy and one sheep. As the number of students enrolling on the BVM&S programme increases, the time available for students to spend effective time on the farms has been reduced. Developing a virtual farm has served at least a couple of purposes: making the best use of limited physical resources, and better preparing students for the time they do spend on the physical farms to ensure the time is used effectively.

One could imagine that such a system allows students to witness veterinary procedures on-demand, such as the birthing of a calf, rather than having to organise visits to a farm for large groups of students.

To increase the level of buy-in from students, the designers of the virtual farm added two webcams to give live pictures of the farms. They also assigned individual animals to students to further involve the students in the virtual ‘experience’. This, I feel, addresses some of the dangers of introducing a new technology-based system, such as the disconnect that might occur if students spend less time on the physycal farm than students might have a decade previously. I found the idea of students monitoring the progress of ‘their’ animals to be a very innovative approach. The use of webcams, though innovative in this context, isn’t as innovative, in my opinion, as the personalisation of animal data in this way - the so-called “adopted animals”.

I felt that good use was made of existing hardware on the farm to ensure that the best possible use was made of the myriad of data available from electronic tagging and feeding systems. The integration of disparate systems from different suppliers wasn’t without its problems, but will ultimately pay off when considering that students have remote access to data that might otherwise necessitate a group huddling around or competing for access to a PC with this data.

I was interested in the concerns of non-student / non-academic staff, i.e. farm workers, around the issue of privacy and the idea of Big Brother looking over their shoulder. The implementors of the system did their best to install the webcams in the least obtrusive way, however it demonstrates the point that not all stakeholders are willing to buy into a new system easily.

The one area that I felt was weak in this case study, and the implementors acknowledge the drawback, is in the area of feedback. Much of the feedback was anecdotal, based on the comments of students and staff, and the comments posted on blogs and discussion forums, but there was nothing formal to measure how effective the implementation had been. There was no suggestion of grades being improved, a return on investment at a certain point, etc. The implementors acknowledge also that this is an area they will need to address.

As I discuss the three other case studies, I will come back to this case study to compare and contrast.