= Premium Content

  • Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

U. of Missouri Seeks to Limit Recording of Classroom Lectures

November 18, 2011, 12:48 am

Under a policy change proposed by the University of Missouri, students who want to record classroom lectures would first have to obtain written permission from their professors and classmates, the Associated Press reports. Administrators say the intent is to protect “the sanctity of the classroom,” so students and faculty can freely express their opinions without worrying about their comments’ being posted online. The university was at the center of a controversy last spring after highly edited videos of labor-studies classes were posted online by the conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • archman

    Oh no, how will the “auditory learners” cope??

  • clawson_day

    Requesting permission to record academic property doesn’t seem unreasonable.  Auditory learners who either slept through or missed class entirely are served and the materials have a better chance of remaining uncompromised by those whose intent is not necessarily for educational purposes.

  • yellow1

    When students asked me if I minded being recorded lecturing, I always said that I didn’t. However, I asked those students to remember that their classmates must be considered since I didn’t stand up front and talk from start to finish. I think that interaction must be considered, just as any institution’s marketing department must get permission to use students in web videos, pictures for the front of catalogs, etc.

    These permissions are necessary for the reproduction of images. The assumption that students who record lectures do so only for themselves cannot be validated or trusted. I also agreed to have my lectures recorded, not to have them posted online by someone other than myself.

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    The notion that, in a public university, classes are not open to the public through a recording medium, seems distinctly troubling to me. Little is gained through a lack of transparency; much is gained through complete transparency.

  • archman

    This is the 21st century. Access to personal recording equipment is ubiquitous. So is software that edits what you say or do in classroom to completely alter the context. Now imagine this being uploaded to youtube or facebook. Now imagine being fired from your job as a result of this. This isn’t theoretical, this has actually happened to professors.

    There are professors who have had their class lectures deliberately edited to make them sound like political activists, racists, sexual predators, and criminals. It is an increasing and highly alarming trend. Faculty and universities that do not take steps to acknowledge and prepare for these situations will do so at their peril.

  • nacrandell

    in reply to Dr_Zachary_Smith

    “The notion that, in a public university, classes are not open to the public through a recording medium seems distinctly troubling to me…”
     
    A public university should be open and transparent to all registered students of the university and the class.  The information presented by the instructor and discussed by the class, however, should not be redefined for political purposes to those outside class and the university. Cherry-picking statements from a lecture or discussion is not constructive in an educational environment.
     
    On a comical side note – in the freshmen American history class, circa 1982, a classmate recorded the lectures after the professor agreed to it, many instructors did not. The student, sitting in the front row, though had an irratating habit of raising his hand and asking the professor repeat something so he could write it in his notes while the tape recordor was operating.

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    Wouldn’t the logical move, then, given what you say, be to record and make freely available your own lectures (and who lectures in class anymore?) before others do it?

  • jffoster

    Herr Dr. Smith,
        Who then owns the material?   The public general do not “own” the right of access to all course lectures and presentations and students’ participation in discussions just because it may be a public college or university. 

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    The notion of owning this kind of material is so 20th century (and it’s not on point to what I posted–which is that, once the lecture is given, it can be posted by anyone, and thus it’s better to be proactive). But really–IP of this sort is not worth much to begin with, if anything at all. It’s not content that’s the value in a college–it’s the service. That, of course, is high heresy.

  • nacrandell

    “The notion of owning this kind of material is so 20th century…”

    I agree comrade Smith, jffoster is simply applying his bourgeois self satisfying point of view to keep the proletariat ignorant.

    Of course, he could be trying to keep food on his table by honest work. Unless the instructor has copied and pasted the lectures, a 21st century respected form of research, then the lecture has been written with time and energy that the instructor hopes to earn a living. So why should it be given away? The lectures are open to those that qualify for the university and the course and they attend the class.  By reducing the lectures to an online download, the standard universities reduce the quality of education they offer.

    Seriously – Dr. Zachary Smith?
    I just can’t get over the bumbling ‘Lost in Space’ connection.

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    “Lectures” are not a satisfactory way of helping to create both skills and knowledge–the sum of education–in an individual. Professors who are “lecturing” today are not teaching well. The “lecture” time should be spent in activities that will spur creative and critical thought in a dull mind.
    And hey, you pick your pseuds, I’ll pick mine.

  • wise1inmo

    I lecture often, most notably in an introductory course. How in the blue blazes can students intelligently converse when they have no knowledge of the subject? Hence, the lecture. Sometimes, college material must be learned – I speak, they take notes and use them to study the material.
    Now – in upper level courses and seminar type classes, I expect that students have gone through enough lectures to be informed and knowledgeable enough about the basic material so that NOW we can have more of a give-and-take in the classroom.
    I am so over the adaptive learning experience. Sometimes, students simply must learn and it is often best by achieved by lecture.

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    Put the lecture online. Use the classroom for other activities: discussion, group work, etc.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HDSC2GIYZDIVWPQCECTBACJSEA D

    Maybe a good compromise: have the professors record their own lectures and grad assistants/interns edit and post.

  • proftowanda

    The notion that my intellectual property — my lectures for which I have researched for many hours, my lectures on which I have worked to structure for hours, etc. — are not mine is against the laws of intellectual property, Dr. Smith. 

    The U of Missouri is wise to take this step for reasons beyond those given here.  I know of colleagues hired to research and structure classes as visiting profs, whose classes then were taped by the campus, which then simply reran videos of those lectures in their entirety as the same class, with grading by grad students, for the same tuition and fees.  One such colleague who had carefully read the contract finally fought this practice on grounds of intellectual property law and won. 

    Yes, little was gained by that campus through its lack of transparency in not stating in the contract that the entirety of the course became the property of the campus.

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    Ah, there are the laws of intellectual property, and then there is reality, which the laws have not yet caught up with. As the music business found; as the video business is finding. I should note, however, that I have no brief for administrations which have not worked out IP issues at the start with their faculty.

    I appreciate that you work hard on your lectures (which, I maintain, if delivered live are an antiquated and ineffective way of teaching; consider the etymology of the words “lecture” and “lecturer”). Sadly, however, one student with an iPhone or a LiveScribe pen “steals” your lecture and places it online–perhaps editing it so that your thoughts are out of context. The only way, then, you have of protecting yourself is to be proactive in putting your lecture out there.

    And I believe that we have to re-examine how we think of IP (“your” lectures may reflect your structure, but, as you say, they rest on the research of others. I have no doubt that you acknowledge them in your classes, but still–your IP is derivative. As everybody’s is. Our ability to “own” IP rested on controlling the means of access–charging for lectures, charging for books. Now, we are like the music industry, and, like the music industry, the educational service industry has not adjusted.).

    Technology is changing everything. We need new paradigms; the old ones are
    getting run over by the engines of progress.

  • awegweiser

    At typical smarmy conservative trick. Andrew Breibart should be coated with sticky petroleum derivative and poultry plumage and ridden out of town – say to Idaho where he will find buddies.

  • emmadw

    (How come you can’t reply to a 3rd level message? Oh well, this is really in reply to Zach’s later comment: “Put the lecture online”)

    I’ve found that doesn’t always work. I have one unit that’s got a lot of material online. The class time has activities that are designed to work if students have done the work. Some do, some don’t. Some do most of the time, some only do rarely. 
    Students have to be motivated to work in this way (a more blended approach); they often see it as ‘easy’ (fewer timetabled hours than other subjects). It also only really works for relatively static material; it takes far longer to create an hours worth of material if it’s delivered online. If it’s a fast moving field, then it’s not that practical. I could see it working for optional units (anything core always has some students that aren’t keen); and subjects that aren’t fast moving; but not all subjects work like that. 

    (And, what’s to stop students recording classbased activities & editing them to suit their needs??)

  • nacrandell

    “Ah, there are the laws of intellectual property, and then there is reality, which the laws have not yet caught up with. As the music business found; as the video business is finding. I should note, however, that I have no brief for administrations which have not worked out IP issues at the start with their faculty.”

    The law is reality. For example, homeowners often realize that their signature to a document binds them to a set of rules and procedures which will take their intended course, regardless of third-party humane attempts. It is quite ironic that you adopt a cold tone toward teaching in the antiquated fashion, but do not understand how the law cooly and methodically operates.
    _____________________________________________________

    “And I believe that we have to re-examine how we think of IP (“your” lectures may reflect your structure, but, as you say, they rest on the research of others. I have no doubt that you acknowledge them in your classes, but still–your IP is derivative.”

    Research is dependent and built upon previous knowledge and simply posting it online does not suggest it is either copied and pasted or better cited. The research and compilation of material is presented to the students with analysis and not simply loaded to a site so students can retrieve if they desire. One recurring inaccuracy is that students arrive in class to hear the topic without background information. Classes have a syllabus, supporting text(s) and often a list of additional reading or now internet sites. When a student arrives in class, the instructor offers to explain the events and answer questions from the prepared student.
    ______________________________________________________

    “Technology is changing everything. We need new paradigms; the old ones are getting run over by the engines of progress.”

    No. Although technology is increasing the speed of communication and enlarging the methods of communication, the communication model is intact. If every time new technology ‘solved’ our problems were true, then gunpowder would have ended war years ago.

    To recap – plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    But much is lost if, in the false name of transparency, political ideologues are allowed to edit what the professor actually said into something the professor did not say — as Mr. Breitbart did.

    The notion that “transparency” includes a right to distort what was said is bizarre, and dangerous.  I have a right to speak; as a professor, I have a right and duty to profess.  You have no right to claim I said something completely different, nor to use the information I created for your own profit or other, nefarious purposes.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    So you think an author or lecturer has no right to profit from his own intellectual property?  That a person must give away one’s books, paintings and lectures, in order to protect one’s reputation?

    Bizarre.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant patents and copyrights.  That’s as it should be.  That’s what’s going on here.  Let’s stick with the Constitutional structure, eh?

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    Sadly, I must respond to myself to respond to edarrel.

    Of course I think people have the “right” to profit from their work. But talk to a musician, and see how much that “right” makes for her or him in today’s world. The model for getting paid, more and more often, now, is not recorded music–it’s the live performance and all the merchandising that goes with it.

    Similarly, it’s not the lecture (in the sense of a professor speaking about a subject while the class takes note) that is the value add in education. Lecto, lectare: I read, to read. Look at medieval images of the lecturer; he is literally reading to the class, which takes notes–because books are too expensive (and authority is all).

    Now, if one “lectures,” one can use lecture-capture technology and put it on the web–without even giving the lecture to an actual class. Real class time can then be used for far more valuable interactions with students–who can even be expected to come to class prepared. 

    But once the material is on the web, as much as you may “own” it legally, you no longer own it in the sense that you control it. Copyrights are gone–ask musicians. As for patents–well, ask the Chinese.

    We have entered into a different era in IP. You don’t have to like it. I would never claim that it solves all problems. But it is different. You can deny that all you like (“I can deny anything….if I like.”). Denial will not change the underlying situation, however.

    I’ve only had one great lecturer in my life. It’s an exceedingly rare skill, like that of Mozart’s. Your students typically would benefit far more from different kind of live interactions. They need the content, but they need the skills to deal with that content even more.

  • nacrandell

    “Copyrights are gone–ask musicians. As for patents–well, ask the Chinese.”

    No, enforcement may be an issue but the regulations and laws exists and can hold individuals responsible. Using your musical download scenerio:

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/downloadingday3/
    Jurors ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay record companies $220,000 – or $9,250 for each of 24 songs for which the companies sought damages. They could have awarded damages as low as $750 per song.  A third trial solely to determine damages was held in November 2010, resulting in a jury award of $1.5 million against Thomas-Rasset. In July 2011, the court again reduced the $1.5 million jury award to $54,000, or $2,250 per song. The record labels have since appealed this decision.

    If the university writes a clear procedure, with accountability, that will protect the instructor’s IP rights, fellow students’ right to privacy and the rights of impaired students, then woe be to clever student wanting to break the procedures. The enforcement can either be monetary or suspension from class or expulsion from the university.

    As for the Chinese and giving up – really? Your argument is two wrongs make a right? (Pun intended)

  • jeepdweller

    Agree completely with Dr. Smith – technology is changing everything and the model is crumbling.

    I’ve heard a lot of folks talk about how antiquated education is – for the most part still structured around a centuries old model. The ability to record and edit is a strength – and part of the change – and so is putting material online. Lecture is pretty much a horrible waste of class time – if you’re doing something in class that can easily be duplicated online (listening to someone talk) – well, that reminds me of the quote I’ve heard (roughly) “if you can be replaced with a computer you should be”. The challenge for you the teacher is not to control your material and students, but how to encourage them to be creative with what you want them to learn.

  • nacrandell

    “Agree completely with Dr. Smith – technology is changing everything and the model is crumbling.”

    Have to ask – How in the world were the pyramids and the Empire State building built without MicroSoft Project technology? Or are you suggesting aliens?
    ______________________________________________________

     ”if you can be replaced with a computer you should be”.

    Applying this statement to teaching degrades the educational model. The benefit of a university course is the advisement by an instructor to a student. Instead of reading Paul Johnson’s histories as objective, a student is guided to understand the interplay of objectivity and subjectivity.

    The online technology model Smith promotes limits the educational possibilities through slavishly following a new trend without incorporation as well as changing instructors to information middlemen: copy and paste and follow this link.
    ______________________________________________________

    “The challenge for you the teacher is not to control your material and students, but how to encourage them to be creative with what you want them to learn. ”

    Why not learn the basic structure and then become creative. Pablo Picasso could paint classically, yet he choose to present the image differently as compared to bad artists who appear creative for marketing purposes only.

  • Dr_Zachary_Smith

    ” The online technology model Smith promotes limits the educational possibilities through slavishly following a new trend without incorporation and change instructors to information middlemen: copy and paste and follow this link.”

    Dead wrong. You’re reading your fears instead of what I wrote. The model I promote enhances educational possibilities by extending the range of interaction inside the f2f class. The teacher ceases to be a mere deliverer of information and becomes instead a true enabler of the learning process. While, of course, that can indeed happen in a regular lecture mode, the thousand-year-old model usually limits interaction rather than expanding it. You might want to go back and read what I actually wrote again.

  • nacrandell

    “..The teacher ceases to be a mere deliverer of information and becomes instead a true enabler of the learning process..”

    And there is the disconnect. When students arrive in class they are expected to be familar with the current topic, text selections and any outside material they found, however, you have repeatedly suggested that the ‘traditional’ class time is devoted to an instructor reading notes while students copy every word. You then make the argument that technology releases the instructor and students from this arcane system of learning – in short you create a strawman.

    New technology can benefit education and should be incorporated to enhance communication of the course material. However, technology is not the end all and be all - the M-16 was a technologically advanced rifle compared to the AK-47, but it wasn’t a better rifle.

    Edward Murrow once said, “The newest computer can merely compound, at speed, the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say and how to say it.”  Crying  out that technology has no place in the communication model is like crying out that the old model is dead – extremist and subjective.

    A good example of technology gone wrong because of user error is PowerPoint. Technology in the wrong hands can ruin communication through misuse of the technology. When incorporating technology remember what Thoreau wrote, “simplicity, simplicity, simplicity”.

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.