Leslaw et. al., Entwine has integrated MH 1.3 with calendaring systems (e.g. 25Live[1]) to produce an automated, hands off solution, for clients. We are currently exploring, with a potential client, how to best integrate MH with the open source calendaring tool, Bedework [2] to create an automated solution.
As for capture agents, Entwine is working with Entropywave [3] and they recently posted to their Twitter feed the following: "We're very excited to be demoing a yet-unannounced brand new product at the upcoming #Matterhorn Unconference", so we are excited about their involvement with the community. We will also be co-presenting with a second hardware vendor on a new range of capture agents at the Harvard event. If you don't me asking, what type of LMS integration are you looking for? would LTI work? and what LMS are you currently using? Best wishes, Andy Entwine http://entwinemedia.com twitter.com/entwinemedia ----- [1] http://corp.collegenet.com/products/25Live_overview.html [2] http://www.jasig.org/bedework [3] http://entropywave.com/ or http://twitter.com/#!/entropywave On May 10, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Dr Leslaw Zieleznik wrote: > Par 2. These are very good observation, and many of these were the reasons I > decided not to implemented PcP2 on a wide scale. > > As for the MH there are still unresolved problems, like LMS > integration, luck of integration to any calendar (Entwinmedia has suppost > implemented one?), by hand deleting temporary file (this ought to be done in > rel 1.4) and many more. > At least the engine is very stable, and by implementing it on our > system infrastructure will allow us a much better control than relying on > external support. > I also believe the Opencast community will sort out any > outstanding problems, sooner or later? > Quite fortunately the Ncast capture device, I have chosen is very > stable, and it can work independently from MH core, though is not cheap. But > according to Andy Wasklewicz, few new devices are on the way. > > Hopefully I will survive with MH :) > > Thanks, > Les > > > On May 10, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Stuart Phillipson wrote: > >> Well, the successful system really falls into two areas of operation. >> >> 1. How people interact with the service you provide. >> 2. The technical infrastructure. >> >> I think we have 1 down pretty well. We created a system that doesn't need >> any training to use, appears to have near zero impact on the theatre >> environment, operates uniformly across all locations and doesn't require the >> academic producing the content to press any buttons, log into web pages (in >> the theatre) or go on a training course. The people side of things runs so >> smoothly that quite a few of the teaching staff don't even check on their >> recordings. They just trust that they'll turn up unless they hear otherwise >> from their students. Hard to imagine, but one of most popular academics had >> 16,300 downloads in semester 1 and didn't review a single one of them. The >> system is generally word of mouth recommended between academics "as you >> don't have to do anything", a big win for us. >> >> 2, the technical side is more of a challenge as we're using podcast producer >> 2. Our system is download only, doesn't stream, has a centralised non-cached >> calendar, no calendar web UI, bottle necks, single points of failure, manual >> RSS feed creation, no editing (not even in and out points), weak capture >> agent management, weak capture agent design, many locally generated script >> and application work-arounds, basic authentication, no LMS integration, I >> could go on but you get the idea. Some of these could be over come with a >> time and money but I suspect we'd be buying into an expiring platform with a >> massive list of critical shortcomings. >> >> Fundamentally what we're after is a relatively simple system, we're not even >> interested in capturing in theatre video right now, just what comes out of >> the projector and microphones. However I suspect that to keep the successful >> outcomes from part 1, we'll need a flexible system that we can customise to >> our environment. When I spent some time with a few of the big names in >> lecture capture recently, you'd be surprised by how many of them couldn't >> offer me a system free of user initiation at the point of service (i.e. the >> lecture theatre). The few that could were very expensive and had hardware >> solutions that didn't fit in with our teaching environment. >> >> >> Stuart Phillipson | Digital Media Projects Coordinator >> >> Room 1.83 Simon Building >> University of Manchester >> Brunswick Street >> Manchester >> M13 9PL >> United Kingdom >> >> e-mail: [email protected] >> Phone: 016130 60478 >> >> On 10 May 2012, at 13:35, Dr Leslaw Zieleznik wrote: >> >>> >>> Stuart, >>> >>> I have read your report with great interest :) >>> >>> And I just wonder now, why your university is looking for a new system once >>> you already have a such good system in place? >>> >>> Les >>> >>> >>> On May 8, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Stuart Phillipson wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> At the last unconference in Oxford I did a quick talk on some interesting >>>> data I'd gathered that seems to indicate a trend of increased examination >>>> performance (vs previous years) in a unit that made recorded lectures >>>> available for revision. If you're interested in this and didn't attend >>>> have a look at the "Learning Outcomes" video on this page: >>>> >>>> http://opencast.org/video/opencast-matterhorn-2012-unconference-recordings >>>> >>>> There's also some further detail here: >>>> http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/bestpractice/awards/~/media/Files/members/awards/excellence/2011/Manchester.ashx >>>> >>>> Anyway, I embarked on a larger study to see if the trend could be >>>> demonstrated on a larger scale and I said I'd post to the list when I had >>>> some initial findings. In short, although some units did show a trend of >>>> increased performance, others did not. There's still a fair bit of data >>>> analysis to do, basically a few paired t-test (across lecture capture and >>>> non-lecture capture units using the same cohort) with unequal sample size >>>> and unequal variance is required, but the system has quite a lot of noise >>>> in it. This is mainly due to changes in staff, LMS and other factors that >>>> could account for the variation in results. In addition, the selection >>>> criteria of the larger scale test led to teaching staff volunteering whose >>>> teaching standards were already excellent and this likely made any impact >>>> of lecture capture more difficult to measure. >>>> >>>> I'll post again once I've done the in-depth analysis, but it'll take me a >>>> little while to get that done. Based on this the next obvious question is >>>> what could be done next to investigate this further (in further >>>> investigation is warranted)? Ideally a single blind control group >>>> experiment on a unit or set of units would produce a more conclusive >>>> answer. However I doubt this would be ethical. I can't imagine the >>>> practicalities of dividing a class in half and then telling them only 50% >>>> of students would receive lecture recordings. Even if it were done in all >>>> likelihood the group receiving recorded lectures would share them with the >>>> control group. An alternative would be to target a set of units that >>>> showed low variation across an extended period of time, then measure short >>>> term / long term changes with the addition of lecture capture. It might be >>>> a bit tricky to resource this option, so it's probably more appealing if >>>> it were an activity done within a larger project to rollout lecture >>>> capture. >>>> >>>> Sorry for the wall of text, but hopefully that's interesting to some of >>>> you. >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Stuart Phillipson | Digital Media Projects Coordinator >>>> >>>> Room 1.83 Simon Building >>>> University of Manchester >>>> Brunswick Street >>>> Manchester >>>> M13 9PL >>>> United Kingdom >>>> >>>> e-mail: [email protected] >>>> Phone: 016130 60478 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Community mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please email >>>> [email protected] >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> ====================== >>> Dr Leslaw Zieleznik >>> OBIS (Oxford Brookes Information Solutions) >>> Oxford Brookes University >>> Headington >>> Oxford OX3 0BP >>> ______________________ >>> [email protected] >>> Tel: +44 (0)1865 483973 >>> Fax: +44 (0)1865 483073 >>> ====================== >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe please email >>> [email protected] >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> >> >> To unsubscribe please email >> [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ > > ====================== > Dr Leslaw Zieleznik > OBIS (Oxford Brookes Information Solutions) > Oxford Brookes University > Headington > Oxford OX3 0BP > ______________________ > [email protected] > Tel: +44 (0)1865 483973 > Fax: +44 (0)1865 483073 > ====================== > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > > To unsubscribe please email > [email protected] > _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
