Dear Professor Pattison
We write to express our concerns regarding the new "opt out" policy on lecture recording that is being piloted across the University this semester. Our concerns are both pedagogical and ethical. In this letter we present these concerns for the University's consideration.
The University has identified student retention as a significant problem. There is already significant evidence that lecture recording has a negative impact on student attendance. The pilot "opt out" policy, which seeks to universalise lecture recordings, will only compound this trend. Student attendance at lectures and issues of student retention are related. The University should be developing policies that engage the students more with university life, not providing opportunities for them opt out of that experience.
Findings from a study conducted by Drs Anna Boucher and Lynne Chester show that there are clear negative effects of lecture recording on attendance. The study analysed the learning outcomes for 1,500 first year students in Political Economy and Government over a two-year period. According to the authors:
- Lecture attendance is negatively correlated with the presence of lecture recordings at the University of Sydney. The estimated effect is a 14% reduction in attendance.
- This amounts to an estimated indirect reduction in final marks of approximately 0.5 to 0.6 marks via the reduced beneficial effect of lecture attendance (1 per cent significant level).
- Lecture recordings also show a ripple-on effect on tutorial attendance of -2.7%, which amounts to an estimated indirect effect in final marks of –0.369 (1 per cent significant level).
Source: initial findings from Lecture Capture Study, Drs Anna Boucher and Lynne Chester, funded by the Teaching and Learning Initiative Award, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, 2011.
We believe that lectures are a learning experience based on being present and are concerned that this this policy will re-shape student's expectations as to what constitutes a lecture, and what is required from the learning experience it represents. In effect, signalling to students that lecture attendance is not required sends the wrong message about what a university education involves. In particular, this is the wrong message to send to first year students.
To be clear, ours is not, in any way, a statement on those colleagues who choose to utilise lecture recordings. In fact, some signatories to this letter record their lectures. Rather, it is a statement about respecting individual teaching choices, and diversity in teaching practices, rather than the homogenisation and imposition, that this shift from the current 'opt in' to the piloted 'opt out' policy represents.
Which leads us to our ethical concerns.
First, a policy that makes lecture recording the default setting does not respect those who, for pedagogical reasons, do not want lectures recorded and freely available. The lecturers who choose to opt out are then asked to justify their request. There are, however, no standardised criteria for subsequently accepting (or not) their justification, by the Dean, or their delegate. In effect, instead of making both choices equal and legitimate, the opt-out policy puts those who choose to opt out on the back foot. Moreover, with this policy the University risks creating tension between the 'opt out' lecturers and their students. Indeed, one important damaging effect is that it provides grounds to students who want recordings to be able to challenge those lecturers who choose to opt out.
Second, as it is being rolled out, the policy is revealing itself to be inequitable: teachers of first year units may not apply for opt outs. Although we understand this may be faculty-specific, the University should be aiding, not punishing, those who are doing the hard work of teaching first years. A policy that applies inequitably and differentially to different teaching levels, and is more constraining for 1st year coordinators, is uncollegial.
Third, we do not find that the concerns about privacy, with regards to the rights of both the students and the lecturers have been adequately addressed, including in the 'Lecture Recording in 2015 FAQs' document.
Fourth, although we know this has begun to be recognised, we are deeply concerned at the lack of consultation. Such a fundamental change to the teaching environment should not be introduced without detailed consultation with the staff who will ultimately bear responsibility for implementing it.
We understand that the policy has been deployed as part of a broader e-learning strategy. We agree that universities have to embrace new forms of technology and consider new modes of teaching delivery. However, technology cannot be the answer to all problems and in some instances can worsen them. We are unconvinced that the case has been made that lecture recordings will enhance the learning experience.
In sum: This policy is problematic on both pedagogical and ethical grounds. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the University abandon the 'opt out' route, and return to the current 'opt in' policy, which has not, in our view, been proven dysfunctional.
This would enable both those who do, and those who do not, want to use lecture recordings to continue to be able to do so equally.
We look forward to your response.
Yours Sincerely,
Charlotte Epstein, Government and International Relations
Ariadne Vromen, Government and International Relations
