1. Copyright OCM, University of Minnesota- 2006. This work is the intellectual property of the Regents of the University of Minnesota. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the University of Minnesota. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the University of Minnesota.

2. Automated Classroom Video Streaming Pilot Program at the Univ. of Minnesota Educause 2006, Oct 10 James Gregory, Classroom Technical Services Office of Classroom Management University of Minnesota jgregory@umn.edu

3. Audience Expectations Get justification for Class Capture concept Demonstrate feasibility of capture and video streaming without the requirements of an operator Develop guidelines for analyzing marketplace system choices for your campus

4. OCM University of Minnesota Office of Classroom Management OCM is the central point of contact, and single point of responsibility, for all general purpose classroom issues on the three Twin Cities campuses. Classroom Technical Services (CTS) operates as the technical support organization for OCM.

5. The UofM Challenge: Advanced data-projection capability 300+ classrooms Easy-to-use systems Reduced maintenance costs Improved classroom uptime Ability to interface new devices

6.  Includes basic tech infrastructure for teaching & learning fixed data/video projection capability internet connectivity at instructor station wireless student networking smart control system with networking option user friendly laptop interface standardized operating protocol familiar to UofM faculty standard input devices (VCR and DVD ) may have other modular “add-on” capabilities “Hotline” phone for instructor accessibility features flexible growth potential - able to interface new devices  Baseline for UMTC general-purpose classroom technology Included in Facilities Construction Standards (Appendix DD) PROJECTION CAPABLE CLASSROOM STANDARD

7. OCM Technology Upgrade Plan To bring laptop projection capability (Phase I) and student wireless networking (Phase II) to all centrally scheduled Twin Cities classrooms (approx. 307) at the University of Minnesota under a Classroom One- Stop umbrella.

8. Phase III Concept

9. Phase III Low-End Asynchronous Video Streaming capability is also under consideration as “Phase III” of the ongoing Tech Upgrade program for UMTC central classrooms.

10. “Low-end” “Low-end” means a low cost, relatively simple capability to capture and archive teaching activity that occurred in a classroom.

11. “Low-end” asynchronous video streaming- Priorities Operator replaced by affordable technology Easy to use Transparent from the instructor’s perspective

12. “Low-end” asynchronous video streaming Would support on-demand recall of classroom activity Would not support live streaming Relatively simple capture and archive Would be scalable from installation, support and lifecycle cost perspectives

13. Pilot Project

14. Project Objective To evaluate the concept of adding modular technology to the standard Projection Capable Classroom system that would provide faculty with the capability of capturing and asynchronously streaming classroom activity without the requirements of an additional operator.

15. Develop easy to use system Demonstrate project feasibility Develop classroom automation Develop server process automation Utilize faculty input Evaluate outcomes Make recommendations Project Processes

16. Technology

17. AMX Netlinx Controller DATA/VIDEO PROJECTOR A/V Switching and Processing Volume Control Audio Amp Laptop Network Control Panel UofM Low-End Streaming Classroom System SOURCES Instructor Camera DVD, VCR, other media Classroom System Data Additional I/O Wireless Hub Hotline NetworkPhone Central Classroom Network Classroom System Data Classroom Technical Services (CTS) OCM Management Server OCM System QA & Problem Response OCM Operator MonitoringHotline System QA & Problem Response © 2005 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota Encoder Streaming Touch Panel

18. FUNCTIONAL BLOCK DIAGRAM CLASSROOM-CAPTURE AUDIO /VIDEO ENCODE & TRANSFER FILE RECEIVE & ARCHIVE FILE ASYNCHRONOUSLY MULTI-CAST FILE STUDENT VIEWS STREAMING DELIVERY CLASSROOM & ENCODER STREAMING SERVER STUDENT COMPUTER NETWORK

19. Instructor Camera Design Considerations Color PTZ AMX controlled Operates as PIP Lecturer controlled instructor video insertion Multiple camera position pre-sets Against the wall parking default Auto-tracking option

20. Instructor Screen Layouts

21. Lectern Monitor Touch Panel before Streaming

22. Lectern Monitor Touch Panel with Password Keypad

23. Streaming Timer Settings Pop-Up Page

24. Instructor Preview Screen

25. Student Screen Layouts

28. Project Component Issues

29. Classroom Capture File Transfer Process Automation Process Student Streaming Delivery Faculty Perception Student Perception Use Statistics Future Applicability/Projections Cont’d Project Component Issues

30. The Future Campus Streaming Server Farm –Standard –Owner –Cost –Interface Requirements –Automation process –Authentication method –CMS interface (Vista)

31. Observations

32. Total Student Usage

33. Student Access

34. Hits by Days of Month- Feb.- Ave. 30

35. Survey Results

36. Survey Results- 63 students Most students attended class regularly Streams were viewed mainly in afternoons Low demand for dial up connections Stated benefits included exam study and to review or clarify material Desire for more flexibility in content delivery (e.g. downloads for iPods) Little interest in audio-only downloads Cont’d

37. Survey Results- comments “Beneficial to pause and replay lectures” Video of professor “was not valuable” Want “more playback speed control” “Downloads would allow review offline” Review makes up for “zoning out in class” Most judged scan converted video as “good or excellent quality” Some indicated desire for “higher resolution”

38. Conclusions

39. Low end video streaming can adequately support asynchronous classroom recall Instructor indicates satisfaction with system Pilot system interfaces with campus technology classroom design standard PCC (Projection Capable Classroom) Classes were captured reliably without an operator Cont’d

40. Conclusions It is impractical to scale multiple departmental servers to support video streaming in General Purpose classrooms Students would prefer the option of down loading lectures to portable devices Students indicate the computer image is more important than the instructor video

41. Recommendations

42. A future streaming system should: allow a multi-windowed display with sizing controls provide high resolution computer image quality Allow down loading of files to portable devices Cont’d

43. Recommendations On a large scale, either a central server farm or an exclusive IT collaborator needs to be employed Analyze up front and life cycle costs for scalable implementation on campus Chosen system should integrate with campus CMS (WebCT Vista) Cont’d

44. Recommendations A full investigation of marketplace class capture systems needs to be implemented and analyzed for UofM needs A server farm collaborator should be sought out Faculty should be surveyed to determine degree of system control desired Cont’d

45. Recommendations System chosen must integrate with the standard Projection Capable Classroom System should be chosen to allow instructors to teach as they normally would

46. Related Capture Issues Hovering in the Wings Competing issues of negative effect on attendance vs. review aid Classroom Visual Aid versus Distant Ed Delivery ROI with regard to increased tuition revenues Fair Use –Determination on classroom DVD/media content streamed over Network –Fair Use requirement on archived file time limit –HIPAA privacy issues

47. Video Streaming Pilot Project Conclusion The Pilot successfully demonstrates the feasibility of the no-operator video streaming concept. Final configuration of future implementation will depend on input from many stakeholders, but the lessons learned in this project will aid in answering questions regarding functional, operational, technical, financial and hardware and software choices. Final project survey evaluations will be posted at: http//:www.classroom.umn.edu

48. Automated Classroom Video Streaming Pilot Program at the Univ. of Minnesota Educause 2006, Oct 10 James Gregory, Classroom Technical Services Office of Classroom Management University of Minnesota jgregory@umn.edu