Sometimes the threat is real. Now we get to true pain and politics. Change is resisted because it can hurt. When new technologies displace old ones, jobs can be lost; prices can be cut; investments can be wiped out. The best thing leaders can do when the changes they seek pose significant threat is to be honest, transparent, fast, and fair. For example, one big layoff with strong transition assistance is better than successive waves of cuts.

Past resentments. The ghosts of the past are always lying in wait to haunt us. As long as everything is steady state, they remain out of sight. But the minute you need cooperation for something new or different, the ghosts spring into action. Old wounds reopen, historic resentments are remembered — sometimes going back many generations. Leaders should consider gestures to heal the past before sailing into the future.

Ripple effects. Like tossing a pebble into a pond, change creates ripples, reaching distant spots in ever-widening circles. The ripples disrupt other departments, important customers, people well outside the venture or neighborhood, and they start to push back, rebelling against changes they had nothing to do with that interfere with their own activities. Leaders should enlarge the circle of stakeholders. They must consider all affected parties, however distant, and work with them to minimize disruption.

More work. Here is a universal challenge. Change is indeed more work. Those closest to the change in terms of designing and testing it are often overloaded, in part because of the inevitable unanticipated glitches in the middle of change, per “Kanter’s Law” that “everything can look like a failure in the middle.” Leaders should acknowledge the hard work of change by allowing some people to focus exclusively on it, or adding extra perqs for participants (meals? valet parking? massages?). They should reward and recognize participants — and their families, too, who often make unseen sacrifices.

Concerns about competence. Can I do it? Change is resisted when it makes people feel stupid. They might express skepticism about whether the new software version will work or whether digital journalism is really an improvement, but down deep they are worried that their skills will be obsolete. Leaders should over-invest in structural reassurance, providing abundant information, education, training, mentors, and support systems. A period of overlap, running two systems simultaneously, helps ease transitions.

Loss of face. By definition, change is a departure from the past. Those people associated with the last version — the one that didn’t work, or the one that’s being superseded — are likely to be defensive about it. When change involves a big shift of strategic direction, the people responsible for the previous direction dread the perception that they must have been wrong. Leaders can help people maintain dignity by celebrating those elements of the past that are worth honoring, and making it clear that the world has changed. That makes it easier to let go and move on.

Everything seems different. Change is meant to bring something different, but how different? We are creatures of habit. Routines become automatic, but change jolts us into consciousness, sometimes in uncomfortable ways. Too many differences can be distracting or confusing. Leaders should try to minimize the number of unrelated differences introduced by a central change. Wherever possible keep things familiar. Remain focused on the important things; avoid change for the sake of change.

Surprise, surprise! Decisions imposed on people suddenly, with no time to get used to the idea or prepare for the consequences, are generally resisted. It’s always easier to say No than to say Yes. Leaders should avoid the temptation to craft changes in secret and then announce them all at once. It’s better to plant seeds — that is, to sprinkle hints of what might be coming and seek input.

Excess uncertainty. If change feels like walking off a cliff blindfolded, then people will reject it. People will often prefer to remain mired in misery than to head toward an unknown. As the saying goes, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.” To overcome inertia requires a sense of safety as well as an inspiring vision. Leaders should create certainty of process, with clear, simple steps and timetables.

Loss of control. Change interferes with autonomy and can make people feel that they’ve lost control over their territory. It’s not just political, as in who has the power. Our sense of self-determination is often the first things to go when faced with a potential change coming from someone else. Smart leaders leave room for those affected by change to make choices. They invite others into the planning, giving them ownership.

Ten Reasons People Resist Change Which ones are hurting your company? by Rosabeth Moss Kanter

Any employer countermeasure against individual strikers with a punitive aim is an interference with the right to strike.

orders to perform duties which were missed because of strike action may breach implied terms in the contract of employment or exceed the scope of what is a reasonable order. The threshold of what counts as ‘reasonable’ will be set by the Article 11 concept of a ‘sanction’ against individual strikers. In turn, this will depend upon the impact of such instructions within the context of particular contractual arrangements of work and time. The social effects of such instructions may be more deleterious where working time is more diffuse and ‘unmeasured’, as is often the case in academic employment.

workers who engage in action short of a strike are entitled to be paid, and any deduction should be kept within strict limits that reflect the status of the right to strike as a human right. This would envisage proportionality between the work undertaken and the level of remuneration, something partly foreshadowed in the decision in Hartley. At the very least, where there is a manifest disproportion between deductions and ASOS, this should be a breach of contract or a wrong for which the common law will give a remedy

6. End note

It may also cover a situation in universities where returning strikers are instructed to mitigate the effects on teaching, whereas non-strikers continue to work on lucrative and highly prized grant applications or pursue publications in journals. The common law’s protection of fundamental rights may circumscribe the scope of the employee’s duty of obedience or inform the scope of what is a “reasonable” instruction, so that an order which infringes the right in Article 11 is therefore unlawful.

Ex post facto

Indeed, the Court of Appeal in Mercer v Alternative Future Group [2022] ICR 1034 has already indicated that the common law right to sue strikers for damages (NCB v Galley [1958] 2 WLR 16) is probably incompatible with the state’s positive duty to protect the right to strike enshrined in Article 11 (Bean LJ at para. 70).

This would also seem to preclude the imposition of a policy of blanket deduction (say, to pick a figure from the air, 20%). The requirement of proportionality necessitates a consideration of the individual striker’s particular situation.

But what about deducting a full day’s pay where an employee has performed some or most duties on a particular day? This appears inconsistent with the decisions of the expert bodies of the ESC and ILO, most clearly where the employer has not made clear by both words and conduct that it isn’t accepting any part performance. The disproportion between the wages lost and the duties foregone invites an analogy with Dilek. The tools are available to shape the common law to reach this conclusion, whether by holding that a quantum meruit is payable, that the deductions must be proportionate to the loss caused by the strike, or by directly adopting a general principle of proportionality or ‘fair exchange’ in determining the wages due for the work provided. In that light, the decision in Spackman, denying a right to payment to workers taking action short of a strike, is in our view wrong.

The Strasbourg Court has recognised a right to strike is implicit in the right to freedom of association in Article 11: see RMT v United Kingdom (2015) 60 E.H.R.R 10. In determining the scope of Article 11, the Court will have regard to other norms in international human rights law, including those derived from the European Social Charter (‘ESC’) and the International Labour Organisation (‘ILO’): see the Grand Chamber in Demir v Turkey (2009) 48 E.H.R.R 54. It requires, too, that rights are practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory.

5. The effect of international human rights norms

Where an employer’s response to the exercise of a leave entitlement has deterrent effects, or may be experienced as punitive by the recipient, it will probably fall within the definition of a sanction under Article 11 in Karacay.

Consider a period of leave corresponding to a fundamental right, such as maternity leave or paid annual leave. An employer implements a policy that any worker exercising leave entitlement must ensure that missed work is made up on return, according to the instructions of the employer. We have no doubt that this would constitute a ‘detriment’ for taking leave. It would also have a significant deterrent effect on the practical exercise of the leave entitlement.

In some contractual settings, where there are clearly delineated working hours and the employee is simply making up missed work within this fixed allotted period, there is a reasonable argument that this may not be punitive.

4. Orders to do missed work on return

All of these cases were decided before the full recognition of the right to strike as a human right protected under Article 11. It is our contention that the common law must now be reconsidered in that light (see below).

One County Court decision followed Lord Bridge’s analysis and denied a quantum meruit to a lecturer who didn’t do some of her duties while at work, implying that workers who take industrial action short of a strike aren’t legally entitled to any payment: see Spackman v London Metropolitan University [2007] IRLR 744. But a County Court judgment has no precedent value, and in Wiluzynski Fox LJ implied the opposite, stating that where the worker attended work, the employer couldn’t ‘give him directions to work and at the same time refuse to pay him’ (though he didn’t explain how much he should be paid).

Where the employer ‘accepts’ partial performance, we think that the employer probably must pay the employee something for the day in question, though it isn’t clear exactly what. Orthodox contractual doctrine, echoing Sim, suggests the employer must pay wages, subject to being able to make set-off if the industrial action causes financial loss. Where it has incurred no financial loss, therefore, it must pay the full wages.

In Wiluzynski v Tower Hamlets [1989] ICR 493 estate officers refused to do one small element of their duties but otherwise worked normally. The employer wrote to them and told them if they attended work it would be in a purely voluntary capacity. The Court of Appeal considered that if the employer gave work or directions to the employees who attended work, this would negate any claim that the work was being performed in a purely voluntary capacity. For, in those circumstances, the employer’s conduct would be inconsistent with its apparent refusal to accept part performance. The question may therefore depend upon what in fact happens at the workplace, including via electronic communications. What has the employer said, for example, when asked by an employee: “do you want me to do my other duties today?”.

3. Part performance – action short of a strike

In Miles v Wakefield [1987] 1 AC 539 a registrar of births, deaths and marriages, on the instructions of his union, refused to conduct weddings on Saturdays, but said he would do all his other duties. His employer, the council, said if he did not do all his duties on Saturdays, he needn’t attend work and, if he did, he wouldn’t be paid for work that day. They deducted 3/37 from his pay, representing the three hours’ work he was meant to do each Saturday, from his normal 37-hour week. The case eventually reached the House of Lords, where the employee’s case was argued by one of the great advocates of the 20th century, Stephen Sedley. Echoing the analysis in Sim, he argued that the employer could accept the employee’s breach in not working and terminate the contract (that is, dismiss him); but if it didn’t, it was only entitled to damages for any financial losses to it, which it could not show it had incurred. Undeterred by the contract principles underpinning this submission, the House of Lords opted for a rather simpler analysis to permit deductions. Dismissing the 50-odd cases cited as ‘ancient and irrelevant’, Lord Templeman went back to basics. ‘It cannot be right’ (always the sign of a weak argument), he said, ‘that an employer should be compelled to pay something for nothing…In a contract of employment wages and work go together…If the worker declines to work, the employer need not pay’. A worker who declined to work “efficiently with the object of harming his employer” was in the same position as one on an all-out strike and forfeited his right to any wages. But he was entitled to a quantum meruit for the reduced work performed and accepted. Lord Oliver found the problem more difficult, but ultimately reached the same result by a slightly different route. An employee who wasn’t ready and willing to serve on a particular day couldn’t sue for wages payable for that particular day. He accepted the arguments by Mr Irvine QC, later Lord Chancellor, who had argued that wages accrued from day to day under the Apportionment Act 1870 so that no pay was due for the Saturday. All the other Lords agreed.

Sim

2. Full strikes

In the earliest of the modern cases, Sim v Rotherham MBC [1986] ICR 899 a stellar assembly of counsel – Eldred Tabachnick QC, David (later Lord) Donaldson QC, James Goudie QC, and up-and-coming youngsters Patrick Elias and David Pannick – grappled with some of the fundamental questions. Teachers were asked to cover for absent colleagues on work days; on the instructions of their union, they refused to do so. Could the employer deduct a sum from their wages in respect of the non-performance of that duty? For the employees, it was argued that the teachers had substantially performed their duties and so were entitled to payment of their wages. If the employer could claim damages for any loss, still it had no right to make prior deduction from salaries, for then it was acting as ‘judge and jury’ and deciding itself if there was a breach of contract and what its loss was. Scott J, later involved in some of the notorious miners’ strike cases, held that the employees were in breach of contract; the employer was therefore entitled to damages for losses caused by that breach; and it could use the doctrine of ‘equitable set off’ to take an advance payment on account, as it were, from salaries.

redolent

1. Introduction

Striking, Pay Deductions, and Reasonable Orders: A Legal Analysis – by Alan Bogg and Michael Ford KC

When Should You Talk to a Doctor?

What to Do if You Use a CPAP and Suspect You Have COVID-19

How Often Should You Clean Your CPAP and Mask?

Can a CPAP Spread COVID-19 to Others?

Frequently Asked Questions About CPAP and COVID-19

Is It Safe to Continue Using a CPAP if You Have Symptoms or Test Positive for COVID-19?

CPAP Machines vs. Ventilators

one study found that lying face down12 while awake when using a CPAP reduced the effort required to breathe and improved oxygen levels among people with respiratory problems from COVID-19.

Around half of people may ultimately require intubation despite CPAP therapy. For these people, delaying intubation may actually worsen their lung injury and increase the risk of death from COVID-19.

Some research found that CPAP provided no added benefit9 in people who were not eligible for intubation.

CPAP as a Treatment for COVID-19

using CPAP therapy as directed by a doctor is associated with lower rates of COVID-19 in people with OSA.

Research has found that people with obstructive sleep apnea have an increased risk of contracting COVID-192. People with OSA may be more likely to be hospitalized3 if they get COVID-19. Some research also suggests that, once hospitalized, people with OSA are more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU)4.

Sleep Apnea and COVID-19

the sample size was relatively small, although broad and therefore arguably generalisable

The follow-up question regarding what features LC would need to support student learning if it were to be used in future, yielded a range of responses. These could be divided into two areas; those that directly supported student learning and those that provided indirect support by giving functionality to staff, which in turn make lecture capture more helpful for students. Each of these could be further subdivided as summarised in Figure 1, which also provides a summary of the rationale for each specific technology requirement. The most cited technology was the need for captioning which was driven by the desire to create inclusive and accessible learning but also legal requirements. Interactivity tools were also frequently mentioned with suggestions of quizzes, discussion or chat options. The rationale for interactivity fell into two areas; a desire to assess what students were understanding and a need to create an engaging, community building learning experience. Staff also wanted to see lecture capture technologies have multiple inputs rather than just slides, audio and video of the lecturer. They felt that this allowed a better capture of their teaching which may include ad hoc use of visualisers or whiteboards to respond to the classroom environment. Finally, the existing functionality of replaying and revisiting capture was noted to be important for students. In terms of indirect learning support, staff felt analytics data from the lecture capture system could allow them to better understand what areas students may need extra help with and so to improve on teaching. Additionally, they noted that an easy to edit interface would be beneficial because they could create more effective resources efficiently and have a clear understanding of the student view.

The most infrequently cited code was that there would be no role for lecture capture technology and within this, three key ideas emerged. Firstly, personal choice, with staff indicating that use would be determined by individual staff members (“I’m not sure that lecturers will use lecture capture.” P39). Secondly, staff noted that LC technology would not be as useful for recording live events because lectures had become more interactive since the pandemic (“I think it might play a more minor role than it has previously because my large-group sessions are likely to be interactive and hence less susceptible to lecture capture.” P84). Finally, staff noted that standard LC technologies may be replaced by alternative technologies which are easier to use for editing, for example (“Redundant. Will use something like kaltura” P34), suggesting recording would take place but just not using LC technologies.

The most cited use was recording of synchronous lectures, within which three core ideas were expressed. Firstly, staff noted that the recording of synchronous lectures would support learning by allowing students to replay and revise the lecture (“Act as a revision aid and a chance for students to ‘replay’ parts which they want more clarification on.” P10). Secondly, it was noted that recording these would allow students to view lectures they could not attend (“Lecture capture will be critical for including students who could not be there on the day for whatever reason.” (P65)). Finally, it was noted that these recordings supported more flexible and inclusive learning with specific learning difficulties and first language differences mentioned (“For those with an SpLD or who do not have English as their first language to revisit the lecture and fill in gaps they missed during live teaching.” P21).

All authors of this work have been actively using and evaluating education technology for several years. The second and third authors (BG, EJD) have been conducting research focusing on lecture capture and video tools for over five years, investigating staff and student attitudes to lectures and their capture both from a teaching and learning perspective and a policy point of view.

Where staff expected a return to the pre-pandemic lecture, it was notable that the reasons given were not pedagogic but related to cost effectiveness and workload.

for those with disabilities, it can be extremely helpful

One teaching method engrained within universities is the lecture, which provides an efficient way to teach large numbers of students [11]. Previous research shows that students value lectures highly as a means of providing core knowledge [7,12] but they can also support development of independent thinking and problem solving

Despite the exceptional circumstances in which changes have arisen, it is highly probable that many universities will continue with their new online modes of teaching long-term with a recent report based on the views of over 1000 sector leaders, staff and students indicating that the future of universities was blended delivery

5. Conclusions

4.5. Limitations of the Current Study

The use of captioning, whilst newer, is also gaining importance. This is partly driven by recent legislation about accessibility of websites, including LC videos on VLEs in the UK and Europe [55] but also by theoretical approaches, such as the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2014). This theory assumes that (i) people have separate channels for processing visual and verbal information, (ii) people have a limited capacity in working memory for each of these channels, and (iii) we must actively process information for meaningful to learning to occur. The theory proposes that captioned lectures (whether live or pre-recorded) can provide a dual-channel approach to processing, with the spoken word (verbal) and caption (visual) operating together.

4.4. What Role Will Lecture Capture Technology Play in Future Lectures?

The staff completing the survey showed positive attitudes to LC, in contrast to previous research [12], and almost half noted that their attitude had become more positive since the pandemic.

This sudden online transition can be seen as a rapid acceleration of a slower pace of change in this direction in pre-pandemic years [3]. Prior to the pandemic, most universities were moving towards blended learning, with face-to-face teaching supported by virtual learning environments (VLEs)/learning management systems (LMS) and tools such as lecture capture (LC) [4,5,6,7]. Previously, the pace of change had been slow and risk averse [8] but the pandemic forced academic staff and institutions to rapidly adopt approaches that were (for them) novel

4.3. Has the Pandemic Has Changed Attitudes towards LC?

COVID-19 is likely to remain a public health concern [44] meaning blended learning may be the most pragmatic approach for the short term [45].

Research also shows that universities do not need to invest in repurposing spaces because active learning can be facilitated effectively in lecture spaces [43].

from a staff perspective, previous barriers included lack of time, training and incentive to reform [30]. Whilst these have not been completely removed by the pandemic, many resources have already been created and staff upskilled as part of the emergency transition, which served as a rapid, albeit forced rather than incentivised, education reform. Indeed, research has shown that staff increased their use of professional development centred on online learning during the pandemic demonstrating a level of up-skilling, although further support is needed [42

Staff expectations of post-pandemic lectures suggested that the majority felt that they would not return to conventional lecturing. Instead, lectures would typically become more interactive. This is likely be to a popular approach for students; research conducted during the pandemic indicates that greater interactions between staff and students is welcomed by students because the amount of interaction is directly correlated with students perceptions of the quality of online teaching [29]

4.2. Will Staff Return to Conventional Lecturing, and What Might Future Lectures Look Like in Post-Pandemic Education?

we found that most staff replaced lectures with multiple methods utilising a range of media and offered both synchronous and asynchronous activities. This use of multiple methods is likely to reflect not only the choice of the academic, but also specific institutional policy. Previous research in this area is understandably limited due to the context of the pandemic but research from outside of the UK, in Spain, reveals little diversity of the methods for online teaching [28], suggesting that the findings here may not be reflected in other countries.

4.1. How Were in-Class Lectures Replaced during the Emergency Online Pivot?

4. Discussion

3.5. The Role of Technology in the Post-Pandemic Lecture

Relatively few staff expressed a desire to return to the pre-pandemic lecture and where they did, they cited a need for ‘in the room’ engagement: “I think ideally lectures take place in real time with the lecturer and students in the same room. In short: for energy, enthusiasm, pacing, concentration, enjoyment, etc.” (P37).

Similarly, they also referred to changes around technology, for example “It would be a slightly enhanced version of the pre-pandemic lecture, with enhanced graphics/animation/use of videoclips, and probably more clearly structured. It would be captured and made available to the students on the module” (P16).

Where staff wanted to see face-to-face lecturing return, they did so with notable changes, as for the expected lecture analyses, with greater interactivity and active learning “more interactive, will probably still keep polls and whiteboards in” (P31)

Most commonly staff reported a desire to adopt a blended approach, with many willing to have the interactive sessions online or in-person, or both suggesting flexibility: “Higher quality asynchronous mini lectures, supported with small-group focussed live workshops (mix of face-to-face or virtual in a single space)” (P32). Within the overall topic of blended, staff frequently mentioned flipped approaches specifically “I like the idea of shorter videos for students and then class time being used to check understanding and discuss any confusing points (flipped classroom)” (P34).

Analysis of responses about the ideal lecture revealed the same four categories as the expected lecture.

The final expectation was greater use of blended learning. Within this, many staff mentioned flipped learning by name, whilst others simply described a flipped approach of students viewing lecture videos or other resources in advance and coming onto campus for more interactive sessions (“I will probably ask students to watch short videos before coming to lectures and then do exercises and other interactive activities with them in the class itself.” P84) [27]. The second idea within this was that blended learning allowed greater flexibility for students (“I think there will be a blend of both ‘conventional’ lecturing and online learning. I think this will allow learning to be more flexible for students.” P54).

Comments about whether their chosen approach was effective were limited, with most indicating that effects were mixed, “sometimes it worked, but not always” (P16). Further analysis therefore focused on the reasons staff gave for effectiveness. Within this context, two key reasons were identified by staff when explaining effectiveness of interactive approaches: student engagement and familiarity/transferability.

Within the surveyed population, most were working full time (n = 66, 77.6%), with only approximately one-fifth part time (n = 19, 22.4%), and two not reporting employment status.

3.4.2. Ideal Views of the Future Lecture

The key reason given for retaining some elements of online learning was cost-effectiveness. As with the pre-recorded videos, these activities had taken so long to produce staff felt they needed to use them for more than one year (“stick with our ‘emergency’ mode with recorded material and the structure of this because it already exists and time is pressed” P40).

staff also felt that some aspects of online teaching in place of lectures would be retained post-pandemic. The most retained component was the use of pre-recorded lectures, although not necessarily to replace the entire lecture experience but more didactic components and to be completed at specific times (“Lectures will be online as shorter videos that students will be expected to watch within a certain timeframe” P61). Asynchronous support around lecture learning was also considered an element to keep (“I expect to continue the asynchronous supporting activities.” P10).

those suggesting that there would be changes to face-to-face lectures commented more on learning experiences, identifying a need for interactivity and active learning (“the massive upskilling and reflection will result in more considered lecturing, more interaction, more active learning during lectures” P21). Staff also noted that smaller chunks of lectures would be used rather than 1–2 h of lecturing (“traditional long lectures will be split into shorter 15–20 sections, with mini-breaks” P16). Although some staff noted that lecture capture technology was in place prior to the pandemic at their institution, this was not universally the case and therefore, some noted that this would become used as standard. The main reason for this was that the technology was now available, having been brought in as a response to COVID-19 at a significant cost to the university and, therefore, must be used (“All our teaching rooms now have moving cameras that capture mobility of lecturer—and this has cost the university significant money—I find it hard to believe that we will not be expected to use this tech next year” P45).

Reasons for returning to the pre-pandemic lecture tended to focus on practical elements such as the need to teach large numbers of students in a cost-effective way (“Better value, [you can] fit money for students [in]” P28) and the requirement for staff to be able to redress workload inequalities that had arisen due to the extensive teaching workload detracting from research activities during COVID (“I think that will happen because everyone is exhausted, and behind with their research, and it will be the only way to cope with meeting the demands of teaching and researching.” P58).

3.4.1. Expectations of the Future Lecture

3.4. The Future of the Lecture

Analysis of the responses revealed five codes, or reasons for the attitude change. Firstly, and the most cited, was that staff now perceived there to be a ‘greater value’ to captured or recorded lectures. The explanations for the greater value could be divided into three distinct areas: Inclusivity (“Previously they seemed inconvenient now however, it would be essential to provide the learning if a student is unable to come to a lecture because of illness” P70); Blended/Flipped (“reinforced the need to blend teaching to create better learning experiences and online recordings are indeed important to this whole learning solution” P22) and Chunking (“Having used shorter, more focussed videos for the past year, I find these a much better way to communicate the necessary information.” P81). Secondly, there was sense of ‘digital positivity’ identified which indicated that attitudes to lecture capture had become more positive because of a general increase in positive attitude to all digital tools rather than specifically towards LC (“I’m more positive about digital opportunities in general” P21). Thirdly staff also recognised a ‘general acceptance’ of LC use (“I have come to accept videoed lectures more so a more positive view” P14). Arguably more specific to LC were the final two reasons of familiarity and production quality. Staff indicated that they had become more familiar with the functions available within LC and this had changed their views (“I have had to learn how to use it properly, now knowing all the features has changed my outlook” P69). At the same time, recognising that the production quality did not have to be perfect was another factor in attitude change (“I have realised that recordings don’t need to exhibit Hollywood/“Royal Institution Christmas Lecture” production values” P34)

3.3. Attitudes to Lecture Capture

They typically reported that for the students who had accessed additional activities they had been helpful, but many did not engage (“The discussion boards and live Q&A sessions have been effective for some students, but it is a core of students who use them, encouraging all to interact has been very difficult” P10). Variation was driven by a range of factors including whether students had “discovered” the additional activities and the specific cohorts involved (“The same type of session received different responses depending on cohort/topic and what students felt was effective varied.” P42). Some staff felt that for effort taken, engagement had been disappointing (“so it was a bit disappointing for the amount of effort it took” P37).

3.2.3. Additional Online Activities Supporting Lecture-Based Learning Online

Familiarity and transferability were noted to impact on perceived effectiveness, in that where a technique for interaction had been used pre-pandemic and transferred well to the online context, this was perceived as more likely to be effective (“this session transferred brilliantly from the face-to-face in person session I used to do to [online]” P43). However, it was also noted that where something was not initially considered effective, more familiarity could increase perceived effectiveness (“It was moderately effective, although I think it could become more effective if we worked to accustom students more to that way of operating.” P85).

In terms of student engagement, staff reported that students were not always willing to engage with interactive activities (“a significant proportion of students would not engage“, P16). In addition to willingness, there were technical barriers to student engagement that prevented approaches being effective (e.g., “issues related to digital poverty and/or connectivity issues did prove problematic to some students” P24). Staff reported that engagement could be increased by allowing anonymity (“giving them an option to give an anonymous answer encouraged participation”, P40). Large group sizes were noted as challenging for many with “very few students want to talk in large zoom calls” (P4), whilst smaller groups supported better engagement (“I think the students found the small group discussions helpful” P86)

Firstly, and most reported was the need to promote active learning and interaction (“Interactive teaching keeps students engaged and seems to increase their understanding” P38). When explaining this, staff expressed views relating to teaching ideals (“Any synchronous time with students should be more than didactic“ P18) and student expectations (“the students really wanted interactions” P18). Secondly, staff noted a need to replicate face-to-face approaches (“I moved to a more interactive synchronous style that is more typical of the model I used pre-pandemic” P27). Thirdly, staff wanted to have a means of assessing students’ understanding (“[To] see how understanding was with the students, as can’t see students faces” P57). The remaining two needs identified were the need to create a sense of belonging for the students (I wanted them to have a sense of being in a group.” P6) and, finally, taking a ‘needs must’ approach. The latter could be divided into (i) available tools (“we had to make do with what was available at short notice to get on with the semester” P24) and (ii) staff abilities (“It was the only way I could see”, P26).

3.2.2. Interactivity in Online Live Lectures

3.2.1. Methods of Online Lecturing

3.2. Approaches to Replacing the Face-to-Face Lecture

Table 2. Teaching experience of participants where total N and % reflect number answering question.

The survey was advertised using several methods to recruit academics across UK universities. Adverts were placed on social media, in institutional research circulars, via the Higher Education Academy Principal Fellows network and HE Advance website.

The survey ran from 16th March 2021 to 19th April 2021.

Table 1. Staff demographic characteristics where total N and % reflect number answering question. a 17 categories were consolidated into three; b no participant reported a sensory impairment.

3.1. Participant Demographics and Teaching Experience

Results

2.5. Data Analysis

All participants were then asked whether they foresaw a return to conventional lecturing

Section 2: focussed on teaching experience, utilising a series of closed questions relating to their current position (duration in role, full time equivalency, focus of role, proportion spent teaching, discipline and level of teaching). Participants also had the option of including the name of the university they worked for.

Section 1: collected demographic information (age, gender, ethnicity and disability) using a pre-determined list of options.

2.4. Survey Structure and Procedure

2.3. Survey Distribution

2.2. Researcher Positionality

2.1. Study Design

2. Materials and Methods

Firstly, we aimed to understand how UK universities replaced in-person lectures and, secondly, to establish what academic staff believed the post-pandemic lecture would look like.

The current study aimed to address the following key questions: (i) How were in-class lectures replaced during the emergency online pivot? (ii) Has the pandemic has changed attitudes towards LC? (iii) Will staff return to conventional lecturing, and what might future lectures look like in post-pandemic education? (iv) What role will lecture capture technology play in future lectures?

By focusing on academic staff directly involved in teaching, we are focusing on a group who have been previously identified as critical in the success of pedagogical reform [19] and who will be directly affected by changes in how lecturers are delivered.

Subsequently there has been a shift in the narrative around lectures and the use of video, such that questions are now being asked about whether conventional live lectures will return. Within this debate, we may see greater acceptance of video media and greater reliance and acceptance of LC by staff, who have previously shown some resistance

Staff have also expressed concern that the availability of video recordings of lectures may negatively impact their intellectual property, performance reviews and autonomy, ultimately affecting job security

can inhibit the use of anecdotes and controversial material, which may support learning

staff have expressed significant concerns about LC, including that it reinforces an acquisition-transfer model of learning

Introduction

COVID-19; lecturing; lecture capture; higher education; flipped teaching; blended learning

This study provides evidence that the pandemic has engendered changes in attitudes and practices within UK higher education that are conducive to educational reform.

Abstract

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020123

by Louise Robson 1, Benjamin Gardner 2 and Eleanor J. Dommett

The Post-Pandemic Lecture: Views from Academic Staff across the UK

The instructors also believe that the platform represents an excellent opportunity for Stanford teachers to reach audiences off-campus. For now, only the room in Wallenberg Hall is equipped to run the platform, but Reich said he hopes Stanford will invest in multiple classroom spaces to expand its adoption. “I think there is major upside here for when we return to class as normal, but we still want to reach people beyond the classroom,” Reich said.

Peter Herminio Maldonado, a senior-year computer science major, said he appreciates how the platform recaptures elements of in-class teaching’s dynamism that are otherwise lost in large lectures over standard Zoom. “I like how the setup brings some of the performance back from campus lectures,” he said.

A unique aspect of the platform is that it empanels a small group of students on a rotating basis to engage in direct one-on-one discussions with instructors during class. The learning platform additionally mixes in breakout rooms where a handful of students can discuss topics du jour, plus live polling and chat features – all essential elements for promoting engaged learning.

A promising new modality

all the classes are recorded so students can engage fully and then later go back and take notes or review the day’s discussions.

Teaching assistants can update the Doc in real time with, for example, questions from students

On the videowall itself, the empaneled section might show 45 students from the Rock class on their device screens in a mosaic splayed across a large Zoom gallery. Meanwhile, the Paper and Scissors section students are also visible, but appear as smaller screen tiles in separate areas of the videowall. Along the videowall’s bottom, three display sections show lecture slides to the instructor (which is also visible on the student’s screens), a clock so the instructor can keep track of time, and finally, an enlarged Google Doc.

Anywhere from one to three of these cameras – depending upon how many socially distanced faculty might be teaching the class that day – are affixed to tripods in front of lecterns in the room, providing a straight-on view of the lecturers. A camera is also positioned off to the side and slightly behind the lecturer, showing the videowall with the lecturer facing it. “We switch up the perspective intentionally so the lecturer does not appear as confrontational as they might if the camera constantly faced them dead-on, and this also lets students see themselves up there on the videowall,” Smith explained. Another camera placed high upon an overhead lighting rail provides an ambient view of the room and its floorspace.

The entire setup is managed in a control room located on the second floor overlooking the space. Rob Reich giving a lecture as seen in the straight-on camera view. (Image credit: Bob Smith) During class, a teaching assistant in the control room toggles between video feeds from five cameras, mixing up the viewpoints that are pumped out over Zoom to attendees, akin to a live sporting event.

Fostering dynamic exchanges

Stanford course experiments with ways to recapture dynamic elements of in-class teaching

When you click on the Hook menu bar icon, a window appears

Leo: Stephen in Glasgow, Scotland shares his recent NFC experience: I think I know of a problem with NFC. When I first got my Galaxy S3 it would quite often beep for no apparent reason. Every time I put it in my jacket pocket or on my table, it would beep. Then I noticed it was when I put it on my table resting on my wallet that it was beeping. I felt like an idiot for not figuring it out. Some of my newer credit cards have RFID chips inside for the new contactless payment systems. We don't have these in the U.S. yet; or, if we do, they're in very limited areas.Steve: Yes.Leo: One of the problems I had, when you go to Europe it's hard to buy gas because our credit cards are dumb, and you need a smart credit card to buy gas. And the Galaxy S3's reader was shouting out, "Hey, I found a tag." And sure enough, when I downloaded an NFC app from the Android store, the beep would then be accompanied by the card info displayed on the screen when I put my S3 near my wallet. If these phones are going to go crazy when we put them near a wallet with RFID cards, no wonder Apple is holding back. As far as I can see, there is no way to tell Android to ignore a tag. And even if you could, would that use battery as the RFID tag in your wallet was constantly shouting out, "Hey, hey, I'm here," and your phone listened to the details before ignoring it again? Love the show. That's a great question.

above-inflation increases on pay,

the JEP’s second report, expected in December

above-inflation final pay offer that was made in April of this year (effective from 1 August).

I hope that the JEP’s second report, expected in December, will provide the springboard for a joint approach. Last week, university leaders made a formal commitment to joint working with UCU to deliver long-term reform of USS and to taking all reasonable steps to avoid future contribution increases for USS members or employers.

Employers remain committed to jointly working with UCU to deliver long-term changes, to evolve the valuation methodology, reform governance, improve transparency and build greater confidence in the scheme.

Employers are asking members to make a fair contribution too. Scheme members are paying 35% of the increased costs, which works out at £7 per week for those on the average salary.

evidence of the efforts made by all stakeholders to take account of the first report of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP)

the first report of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP)

The outcome of the 2018 valuation is the best that could be achieved given the scheme’s deficit and the current regulatory framework

the Pensions Regulator is unambiguous in its view that the scheme’s funding position means there is a sizeable deficit

The trustee is clear that contributions must increase

The extra contributions are being shared in line with the 65:35 employer/member rate, which is set out in the scheme rules.

unaffordable for the vast majority of employers

unacceptable

the UCU leadership’s current ‘no detriment’ demands

At the heart of the USS dispute is the challenge of how to address the financial deficit in the scheme

we have not been able to find a solution to address the financial deficit in the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) that is acceptable to the University and College Union (UCU).

Mujjo Touchscreen Gloves for Winter with 3M Thinsulate | Windproof, Thermal, Insulated Texting Gloves | Touch Screen Gloves

hope that UCU will now join us to consider governance reforms and alternative options for future valuations, which deliver a shared set of principles, increased transparency and a sustainable scheme.”

the vast majority of branches only reached the turnout threshold of 50% because of the numbers of members voting no.

1 in 5 members were against taking industrial action

the number of UCU members who voted for strike action over pensions accounts for less than 10% of the active membership of USS.

shared 65:35 by employers and scheme members.

The resolution to the 2018 USS valuation is both fair and reasonable,

digipo:date:2016-01-12