Does it make sense to live stream lectures publicly?

No, because those who watch them don't pay fees and don't contribute to education financially.
0% (0 votes)
Yes, because education should be free and accessible to all.
11% (1 vote)
Only for certain topics of public interest that should be promoted.
33% (3 votes)
Yes, because they can contribute to the promotion of the lecturers, their home institutions and/or sponsors.
44% (4 votes)
Live streaming publicly is very powerful but also difficult and dangerous, and teachers should not play with it at home.
11% (1 vote)
Total votes: 9

Comments

Live streaming is trending on the internet, specially in the past few months.. Many educational institution are interested in using live streaming to improve their services. Social media platforms are investing More and more in order to provide a better experience, both on who is watching and who is making the transmission. Then, the mass utilization of live streaming is just the beginning, and there is plenty of growth left in this segment. I would like to highlight five reasons that make sense live stream lectures publicly: 1. Live interactive experience; 2. Better learning experience; 3. Real-time and on-demand live streaming; 4. Accessibility; and 5. Learning about the viewers. So, I believe there are a lot of opportunities to use the platforms at our disposal. And a live stream lecture can create more engagement, more interaction and a better class experience to our students.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 6
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

I agree with your point of the opportunities, but what about the risks? Who is paying you for doing that streaming? Who is making your lecture valuable? At this point, it would be beneficial to have synchronous discussion because the debate would be very enriching. I have this debate also with my music friends. Putting your music on the internet available to everyone and then... who is paying you for this? For your effort? For your creation? During the lockdown, many artists share streaming videos and concerts, and how many of them have received any funding for doing that? Entertaining people for free: This is very dangerous. We take the risk that people think that if this is costless, it has no value.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 7
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

I agree with you, Cristina. Indeed, it is important to look both ways, both good and bad ones.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 3
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

Yes, the public live stream lectures can contribute to the promotion of the lecturers, their home institutions and/or sponsors. The most motivating factor for a professor is to have the audience, the students, hear what she/he has to say. To achieve this goal, it is essential to work in an institution that supports projects and courses, whether in presential or online form. It is important for the institution to be promoted through our work so that people to know it exists and offers interesting courses. Another important aspect is that the sponsor needs to be promoted as well. Perhaps the most common way of funding in Brazilian universities are the research agencies, many of which are linked to the government. But maybe we could think of other types of sponsors, such as companies, partner university institutions and partnerships between the private and public sectors. With a sponsor, it will be easier to get the resources necessaries to offer the course, since the institutions often do not have sufficient resources. Video 1 is a good example of that: there are two free online classes on moral issues at Harvard sponsored by a juice company, among other people. Maybe the last video is a counterexample: despite having a good camera, light and resolution, and maybe meeting a more local audience for not being in English and not having subtitles, it appears to be something more amateur. A good inspiration for the professor is also a successful Youtuber. With good image, sound, environment and communication, the message can be transmitted more effectively. To summarize, we can promote us, professors, our institution and our sponsor, who in turn will be able to maintain the necessary resources so that the course is viable and more accessible to students.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 6
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

We must be careful with the immediacy that streaming offers us. It is clear that YouTubers, influencers have masses of followers that give them benefits. But I don't think it is entirely positive to enter this type of game. Fundamentally because the figures with which we can play for the kind of topics we offer (and Diego said it yesterday) do not allow us to play in that league (to obtain financing through "followers or likes"). Concerning funding: How reliable or trustworthy is research if it is funded by this or that company. For me, one of the strengths of the public education system is its impartiality. The fact that there is no third party with interest financing that we teach this or that. Offering quality education is more than just a couple of good shots, lights, and a few pranks to keep the audience connected (I am taking it to the extreme to make my point). Getting carried away by this type of offering on demand can be dangerous because it can make us lose focus on our teaching work. We must facilitate quality thinking and quality arguments. Resorting to certain elements can indeed be useful, but basing our academic offer alone on it is a risk. The university has a quality seal that other institutions cannot offer, precisely because it bases its credibility on its trajectory, on scientific development. People are also interested because they can provide a certificate of the validity of what they have learned that YouTube cannot give. I agree that this is an opportunity, but giving away knowledge that has taken us so many years to achieve does not seem appropriate. How about intellectual property. The fact that another teacher uses our classes in theirs. To transmit to us a knowledge that may be fine, but has not been elaborated. From there, we will not receive anything, apart from the likes they give to the video (if they do). I understand that we are playing with extremes in this course and that the key is to find an intermediate point, but there are ethical, legal, and knowledge valuation issues that should not be taken lightly. From my perspective, the tools we are learning in the course are one more element to use in our academic offer. An extra that makes us stand out over traditional education, but we must be cautious in its use because the consequences can be long term. Gaining the trust and credibility of society takes a long time; it can be lost in minutes, and getting it back is almost an impossible mission. That is why I am so skeptical, and that is why I prefer to be cautious when offering live streaming videos.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 6
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

I understand Cristina's concern in some aspects, as being careful with public live stream lectures, but I disagree in others. First of all, the question of having a sponsor is not necessarily a bad thing and that it will impact the credibility of the research or the course. On the contrary, I think the sponsor will not want to support something that is not good. Seeing the reality nowadays, there are companies financing, some more urgent topics, for example Covid-19. Currently, several companies, mainly pharmaceutical, are working with public and private universities to find a solution to that problem as soon as possible. And because of this partnership, aren’t ethics preserved? There are regulatory bodies and it is the responsibility of the researcher and his team to ensure that. The fact of having public lectures does not mean that it will take away the credibility of the knowledge that the university has to offer. The public lecture can help people who do not know which course to do or where to do it. Harvard would not give a public funded lecture if it was bad for them. I think that our course with Diego is more than just about tools, it is a course that is dealing with several things that concern the reality of international online education, with reflections on internationalization, how the teacher's work can be enhanced through online courses and how the knowledge by professors can reach students in a more interesting and effective way.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 6
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Answering this question requires an understanding of why we are lecturing live. We'll consider the different options and risks that may arise. First of all, let's talk about teaching lectures online, which was forced due to the epidemic of David-19. Most teachers were faced with a choice: to use the educational platforms of their universities, giving students the opportunity to watch lectures on record or give lectures online. Reading lectures online allowed them to make lectures more interactive, increase student engagement, and more likely to achieve the goal of teaching. It is worth noting that access to such lectures is usually provided by a separate link and with the permission of the host lecturer, and therefore the information is quite secure. However, it is another matter when we talk about teaching lectures online "in general". Of course, a lecturer can significantly promote himself, his courses and educational institution. However, he must be aware of all the risks that arise. First of all, we are talking about the protection of information and intellectual property rights of the lecturer. After all, the information that he provides in free access and on a non-commercial basis can be used in bad faith by other persons and even other educational institutions. Therefore, in my opinion, it is best to use an online form of teaching to provide teaser information, when, for example, the lecturer provides several lectures in free access, and the rest can be obtained by paying a certain amount of money by joining a project, course etc. Also, speaking of online teaching, it should be understood that there are cases when the goal is the most widespread dissemination of information provided by the lecturer and the lecturer receives payment. It is a question of participation by lecturers in educational projects in which there is a certain donor institution which purpose is deepening of knowledge of the population in a certain field. Such an organization selects lecturers on a competitive basis and pays for their work.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 6
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

In fact, this is a difficult issue, with many potential benefits and implications. I really enjoyed the insights of everybody, because all address some issues and possible solutions for this topic. Cristina is right to point out the pitfalls of non-strategic or non-regulated implementation of this type of lecturer, in special regarding the irreversible impacts for the University’s image and teacher's career. If something is given for free, it may end up becoming valueless. For this reason, I see that free live streaming lectures, if implemented, should be part of University's strategy to promote its brand and its work. I agree with Iryna's idea of providing teaser information about University’s courses (even with some master classes), in order to attract prospective students for the real courses (both in live and online). I also agree with her proposal when the goal is the most widespread dissemination of information, such as the implementation of public policies for mass education/training.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 5
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

In a closed and exclusive platform of some institution, live streaming is trending and an educational differential for students, who receive personalized and interactive assistance, especially this semester, in which we experience social distance and online classes on a compulsory basis due to the coronavirus pandemic.. On streaming platforms, as we saw in class today, this solution can be risky due to several factors. I agree with Remo and think live streaming is just valid when the goal is public interest, or a personal live, with specific knowledge, which may be linked to a closed platform course later.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote