Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Iain Stewart et al.
At present there is some confusion over the use of the communications features so the structure of
these needs to be revised.
There were relatively few issues with the original decision to use flash for the video presentation
format but to ensure full iOS compatibility, the playback will be standardised on MP4.
From an architectural perspective the design needs to be more flexible to allow for a wider range of
content to be presented and synchronised.
With this in mind a revised underpinning architecture is proposed. This will be based on an object
oriented model and will have at its core a synchronisation object. This object will contain timestamps
for key points in the presentation. In the standard model these timestamps will be stripped
automatically from the XML of the recorded PowerPoint presentation which is generated automatically
by PowerPoint. These timestamps can then be used to synchronise the other content. For example a
video capture of the same presentation may have an offset compared to the capture slides due to the
start times of the applications but once that offset property is set in the video object then it will be
synchronised to the slides via the synchronisation object. Similarly any other content (e.g. tutorial
questions) can then reference the appropriate synchronisation point and all of the content linked to
that will move to the same cue.
The architecture also allows for multiple objects of the same type to be included (eg a main lecture
presentation and tutorial discussion) as they can be uniquely identified. It also means that there is no
requirement for the content to be constrained to the format specified by the prototype. If there is no
video but for example an augmented podcast is available then that can be controlled and navigated in
a similar manner.
The front end menu and navigation will be generated dynamically and so will only present the content
that is available. For example, if there are no tutorial exercises then the menus system would not
display an empty menu element and similarly if a lecturer wishes to add different content areas then
so long as it is described in the appropriate field in the object then it will be made available through
the menu.
6. Conclusion
This is a continuing project; however it is already clear that the objective of providing an extended,
supplemented, student-centred yet structured teaching resource has been achieved. In addition it can
be implemented on a low cost basis.
At present the work has produced a tool which even at this prototype stage allows the students to
interact effectively with the content. Blackboard utilisation statistics show that it has been heavily used
and even with the limitations identified in this paper it has been popular with the students and
appreciated as a resource which they found helped with their learning activity. The work has gained
significant positive feedback to date and was nominated by the students for a teaching award at the
university. The next stage design is to take the existing strengths of the product and make it more
flexible and easy to use for both staff and students. The value of this work has been recognised by
the learning research centre at the authors’ university and the work is being supported by funding of
the development and dissemination activity.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the past and present students and staff who have supported the
project and provided the feedback that has been essential to the development of the project.
References
Andone, D., Dron, J., Pemberton, L. and Boyne, C. (2007) The desires of digital students. Proceedings of the
14th Association for Learning Technology International Conference, 4-6 September 2007, Nottingham, UK.
pp 189 -200
Black, L. (2005). Dialogue in the lecture hall: Teacher-student communication and students' perceptions of their
learning. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, vol 6 no. 1, pp31-40
Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E and Ecclestone K, (2004) Should we be using learning styles? What research has
to say to practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre 2004
809