« Return to video

How Captions + Interactive Transcripts Help Students in Online Courses [TRANSCRIPT]

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Thanks for joining the webinar entitled, “How Captions and Interactive Transcripts Help Students in Online Courses.” I’m Sofia Enamorado from 3Play Media, and I’ll be moderating today. And today, I’m joined from the University of South Florida St. Petersburg, by Lyman Dukes, professor, and Karla Morris, manager of instructional design services. And with that, I’ll hand it off to Lyman and Karla, who have a wonderful presentation prepared for you all.

LYMAN DUKES III: Good afternoon. This is Lyman Dukes. We are pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the 3Play Media webinar series. Our session today addresses the use of both closed captioning and interactive transcripts in online university courses at our institution, which is the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. As mentioned, please feel free to submit questions, but bear in mind the question and answer session portion of our time together today is at the culmination of the presentation. And we’ll certainly do our best at that time to respond to your questions.

Our session today is titled, according to this first slide in the deck– I know it’s slightly different than the title that you just saw a moment ago, but nonetheless, the content is exactly what you’ve been– or what was indicated it would be. So it’s on “The Interactive Transcript and Closed Captioning– Improving Access for All Learners.” So the essence of this session is about online course features that we believe provide the best access and understanding of the content for the greatest number of students.

This slides spells out our session objectives or our roadmap for the next 45 minutes or so. We’ll look at legislation and relevant literature. We’ll discuss the results of the pilot study we conducted and the potential benefits of the use of interactive transcripts and closed captioning. We will also discuss a rationale for the use of these types of online accessibility tools, as well as share some conclusions and next steps.

Our institution convened an accessibility committee about seven or so years ago, and it’s comprised of a number of personnel, including a Student Disability Services staff person, myself. Again, I serve as a special education professor. It also includes a number of distance learning staff, one of whom is Karla Kmetz Morris. It also includes Casey Frechette, who is a faculty member, who could not be with us today, but was a significant member of the study team. Casey serves in our institution’s digital journalism program.

We’ve been given, by our institution, relative freedom to address a number of academic accessibility concerns, particularly with regard to online instruction. And a portion of what we’ve chosen to do is take a closer scientific look at various online instructional practices we believe will benefit not only students with disabilities, but all students participating in online coursework. About four years ago, we examined the use of closed captioning in the videos used in two of our larger online courses. And more recently– and the focus of the presentation today– we’ve looked at the use of interactive transcripts in, again, two of our larger enrollment online courses.

In this slide, we note where our conversation began, as we discussed how to make courses on our campus more accessible. We organized our thinking around inputs and outputs related to accessibility and universal design for learning. Our studies thus far have addressed two outputs driven by the technology used to deliver accessible online courses, and those are closed captioning and the interactive transcript. They’re noted in the secondmost right column under the title, Technology Output. And for anyone not familiar with the term, “universal design for learning,” it’s defined as a framework for a guiding educational practice that provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, and the way students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the way students are engaged.

Next, we’ll move on to defining our key terms for today, and while I suspect most, if not everyone, in the session knows what closed captioning is, we’ll take a moment and review its definition. Closed captioning is defined as a text version of the audio portion of a presentation displayed synchronously with the audio.

In this slide, you see a screen grab of precisely what an online video would look like with closed captioning. And as you know, captioning in the television environment is standard today. There are laws governing its use. As noted in the slide, the FCC or the Federal Communications Commission approved the use of closed captioning for TV more than 40 years ago.

It’s our stance that the field of education faces a similar journey as TV with legislation or case law governing its use to eventually be in place. The challenge in the case of education is that there are thousands of educational videos made each year, and they’re typically not closed captioned at the outset.

Perhaps a more pertinent topic for discussion is, what is an interactive transcript? Interactive transcripts are a new tool for media consumption, similar to subtitles in many ways. An interactive transcript can be displayed beside or below an audio or video source. As the user hears the words being spoken, the matching words in the transcript are underlined or highlighted. Interactive transcripts allow users to interact with the video in novel ways. For example, users can search the transcript of the video and navigate to an exact point by clicking on any word. In some, video employing the interactive transcript is highlightable, searchable, and clickable.

We’ve included here an example that demonstrates how one can use the interactive transcript. I’m not sure that we’re going to be able to watch the video today, but if we were, we would see a number of features, which include the auto-scrolling script, where you see the words highlighted as you hear them spoken in the video, and then, again, the script itself can be searched.

So you should be able to see the search box there. It’s about in the middle left of the example here, and again, this can also be navigated by clicking terms in the script and through the use of the various tabs that you see in the example as well. And again, the text itself can be printed.

So we’re going to shift gears here just a little bit for a moment, just to give you a brief overview of the legislation that impacts online instruction and, in particular, the use of closed captioning and interactive transcripts in university settings. Online communication and access have been addressed legislatively in a number of ways noted here in the slide. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act indicated that electronic communications be accessible, if institutions receive federal funds, and almost all do.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, states that communications must be equally effective for persons with or without disabilities. The Department of Justice, or DOJ, has noted that the ADA applies to online communication, and the Office of Civil Rights, or OCR, has indicated that public entities may be out of compliance if they are responding to accommodation requests on an ad hoc basis.

So ideally, colleges and universities should have a policy or policies in place regarding requests for accommodations of this nature. As noted in the slide, there is no legislation that specifically addresses the interactive transcript. But there have been numerous findings or rulings specific to closed captioning.

Our university system– USF St. Petersburg– is a part of a university system. We’re made up of three separate universities, and the system itself has policy now that media use that our institutions be captioned no later than 2021. Additionally, faculty are strongly encouraged and supported to employ the Quality Matters guidelines for online instruction. Quality Matters, or QM, for those not familiar, is a process for developing and measuring the quality of an online course, and, perhaps not surprisingly, one of the guidelines references the captioning of online courses.

So the position of our research team is that merely providing access doesn’t necessarily mean that the institution has met its compliance obligation. The access provided must be effective, and, specifically, what that means is that the timeliness, the accuracy, and the appropriateness of the information provided electronically must be addressed. and only then may we be meeting the spirit of our legal obligation. We believe interactive transcripts move us closer to that place. Of course, experience should be the same for students with or without a disability, and I guess it’s fair to say, at least, that’s one of the goals of our committee is we work to help faculty more effectively meet the academic needs of their students.

While not a comprehensive look at the literature on captioning, we would like to share a few highlights. We’ll begin with a column titled, “For Students Diagnosed,” which is on the left portion of the slide. Bullet one there notes that students with hearing impairments have issues with audio and video and accessibility. And interestingly– I thought anyway– the authors of this study also note that the issues had been typically resolved at the instructor level.

Another study, which is the second bullet point here, noted that students with disabilities experience a second digital divide due to accessibility issues with technology. The first technology digital divide speaks to the idea that technology is less available to certain groups of individuals, which would include people with disabilities. And then, accessibility issues exacerbate this and, therefore, create what is described as the second digital divide.

The third study, referenced here, again, under the section labeled for students diagnosed, reported that students with hearing impairments, on average, had an eighth to ninth grade reading level. And visual text alternatives and complex sentence structures they encountered when using captioning created an additional level of complexity for the students.

In the right column for students without a diagnosis, we see that captions have helped students learn a new language. They have improved attitudes towards courses and improved vocabulary knowledge, as well as reading comprehension.

While we didn’t, again, conduct an exhaustive review of the literature with respect to the interactive transcript, we did make a reasonable effort to determine what sort of literature is out there. A study in which 3Play Media played a role found that almost all students believed that the use of the interactive transcript enhanced their learning.

Specifically, as we see in the slide here, 97% of the students, which is nearly all, said that the interactive transcript enhanced their learning experience. They also indicated that they found the interface easy to use and that the transcript-based navigation was useful to them. And then 95%, again, nearly all of the students that participated, recommended that the interactive transcript be used more widely and that they were able to find the content that they were seeking when employing the interactive transcript.

They also gathered some data on how the students used the interactive transcript, so students indicated that it allowed them to move at their own pace. It enhanced their multi-sensory learning ability. They use the transcripts to develop study guides for learning. It improved their focus, and, with respect to content, it improved their comprehension of scientific concepts and their ability to understand English– I assume in the case of students for whom English was a second language.

So the goals for our study were relatively similar, and they’re noted in the slide here. We wanted to determine, first, do students find an interactive transcript useful? And second, we wanted to know how students use the interactive transcript. That is, did they employ its features? And if so, in what ways? Next, we wanted to know whether there was a significant benefit that we could observe and might also be reported when employing interactive transcripts versus closed captioning.

Next, as you see here, we’ll dig into the study itself and tell you first about the methodology, and then following that, we’ll share information on demographic data. And then following that, study results.

We’re a relatively small institution. Our student body in total, including both full and part time students, is approximately 6,500. We’re an urban campus with most of our students coming from our region, but slowly but surely, we’re pulling students from outside the region.

Many of our local students are choosing online courses over face-to-face course sections. So in fact, it’s not atypical to find students who are sitting in a residence hall taking a fully online course. Online course offerings, like many places, are on the increase, and currently, about a third of our student credit hours are generated through online courses in the fall and spring terms, while closer to 2/3 of our student credit hours are generated online in the summer.

So our pilot study was completed through a fully online psychology course. Students who completed the course accessed full length lecture capture videos in which they were able to view both the instructor giving a traditional lecture and the presentation materials used by the faculty member. The course had been filmed in a previous semester with a set of students who participated in a live version of the course at that time.

Ultimately, the course included 25 video lessons that totaled better than 27 hours of course content. So with a 16-week course, this meant that sometimes students were required to view more than one video per week. And then with 25 videos resulting in 27 hours of content, the average length of the videos was just above an hour.

With regard to research design, students, when beginning the course, had to agree to participate, and those who chose to do so, which included the vast majority of the students in the course, were then randomly assigned to either a closed captioning group, which was the business as usual group. So that’s what was typically used in the course. Or they were, instead, assigned to a group that viewed videos, where closed captioning and the interactive transcript were both available. Now, in that group, the interactive transcript was the default option, and the students would have to turn the interactive transcript off, and then turn on closed captioning in order to access it.

Because the transcript, in particular, was going to be a novel experience for the students, we provided both groups with a short orientation video describing what each feature was and how to employ them. Otherwise, the two groups taking the course had an identical experience. We chose VideoJS as the video delivery method due to the fact that it’s highly customizable. Given this, we tailored the appearance of the player, so, for example, captioning was placed at the bottom of the video. We also increased the font size and altered the contrast. We were also able to add custom tracking software. So for example, we included the option to play and pause videos and the option to disable captions and transcripts.

So what we’ve done here is share a screengrab of what a closed captioning group would have seen during one of the actual course lectures employed in the study. And as you can see, it’s essentially identical to the captioning example that we shared just a few minutes ago. In the next– this is what the interactive transcript group saw as they viewed the online lecture content.

And this particular example shows the faculty member stating the word, “multicultural,” and obviously, the reason we know this is that it’s the term highlighted at the moment the screengrab was taken. You can also see a couple of tabs at the bottom, which are tools available to the students or viewers. And one is Toggle Transcript, and the other allows the viewer to turn off text highlighting.

So for the captioning only group, again, the captions where activated by default and could be turned off by the student, while the transcript group had the transcript on by default and the captioning off by default. Again, both could be modified either on or off by the student user. In total, a bit more than 80 students agreed to participate and completed the course pre-test, which we’ll refer to later when we discuss results. A smaller number completed the post-test with a slightly smaller number having viewed two or more videos. When we discuss the results, we’ll talk about the challenges we experienced regarding moving our pre-test takers to our post-test.

Here, we provide a breakdown of the demographic data by gender and student classification, as you see, from freshman to graduate student. Our participants included primarily female students, which were about 75% of the group. The course was an upper level class, so most students were juniors and seniors.

We also made it a point to ask students about their disability status, and we had four in the captioning section and two in the transcript group. We included a follow-up question, and we asked about whether they were registered with Student Disability Services, and only one was. This further highlights the value of accessibility tools in our courses campus-wide.

In other words, we’ve got many students in our courses that have a disability but choose not to disclose to the institution. Clearly, we want all our students to be successful, so employing tools in our course programming that improve the chances of success for students with disabilities clearly makes sense. And it’s also worth pointing out that recent studies at the national level have indicated that almost 2/3 of students with disabilities do not disclose their disability upon college entry.

KARLA MORRIS: All right, thank you. So this is Karla, and I’m going to be chatting with you for the last portion of this presentation. And what I’ll be talking about is the method that we use to collect the data to help us determine the answers to the goals we had for the study. And just to refresh, the goals we had were we already knew that closed captioning was a benefit for students with and without disabilities based on our previous research. We now really wanted to look at interactive transcripts. Is it worth us taking this next step as an institution? Does it really provide that much more support for our students?

So we developed a pre- and post-test to help us answer those questions, as well as we tracked the video viewing habits of the students. So the pre-test was actually developed by the instructor of the course, who was part of the research team, and they were content questions based on the course objectives she had for the students. The post-test asked those same questions, so we could measure what level of comprehension they had on those objectives. We also looked at the perceived extent of usage. We wanted to know how much students felt that they were using the closed captioning, as well as the interactive transcript.

We wanted to look at their previous experience with closed captioning interactive transcripts to see if that had any bearing on how much they used it and how well they used it, as well as disability status, which Lyman just shared with you the results of that, and their demographic information. We also tracked their video viewing habits, and the way we did this is Casey Frechette, who we mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, developed some programming that he overlaid onto the videos, where we could see, in an individual viewing session, one student’s habits.

So did they play and pause the video? If so, when? Did they turn closed captioning on and off? If so, how much, and at what points? Did they turn the transcripts on and off? How many clicks did they make within the transcript? Did they use the search function? So we were really able to get a very clear picture of how each student was really making use of those player tools.

Now, Lyman mentioned that we had 80 students who agreed to participate in the study, and they were sorted randomly into the groups– the one receiving closed captioning, as well as the one receiving closed captioning and interactive transcripts. Of that, we only had 37 students that completed both the pre- and the post-test. So that’s really the only group of students we were able to make comparisons about and get, really, the answers to the questions that we could use in terms of data collection. So of those 37, there were 18 students that had been in the closed captioning group and 19 students who were in the group that received closed captioning as well as interactive transcript.

And so that is a limitation, because it is a small group to work with, but it’s something that, obviously, we want to work with moving forward. The reason we had such an issue with getting students to complete the post-test– because we had significantly more students complete the pre-test– was that the post-test was sort of circumvented by our learning management system. There was no way we could force students to go through the post-test prior to taking the final.

And once students take the final, they’re sort of done with the course. They don’t really want to log back in and do anything else. And so we tried to make some announcements to get some of the folks who’d done the pre-test to also do the post-test, but that’s sort of the challenge we had there and something that we have to work with in the future.

So what we’re going to look at now is the findings that we found from the results of the pre- and the post-test information. So the first finding was that students want closed captioning, and they find it helpful. We asked students, were captions helpful? And their options were not at all, slightly, moderately, very, and extremely. And 93% of participants found the closed captioning at least moderately helpful, so really only 7% of them found them only slightly helpful.

And another question we had was, would you always want the option for captions on your course videos? And nearly 80% always want that option of closed captioning, and about the same amount– so it was 78% who always want the option for closed captioning. And in the interactive transcript group, 79% of those students always wanted to have the option of the interactive transcript available within their courses.

The next finding we had was that students who worked with interactive transcripts found them particularly helpful. So 44% of the students in the interactive transcripts group said that interactive transcripts were extremely beneficial. But what I did want to point out is that we only had 6% of students feel that they weren’t beneficial at all. So again, 94% of the students found them helpful in at least some way.

The third finding we have is that both closed captioning and interactive transcripts made a difference in student learning. And this is really where we measured their gains in terms of the content-based questions on the pre-test, and the content-based questions on the post-test, as well as examining their overall grade in the course. So overall, of all of the students who completed the pre- and the post-test, their grades on the post-test increased about 10%. So they showed an increase of at least a letter grade there.

The closed captioning group improved by about six points from 69% to 75%, and the students in the interactive transcript group improved by 13 points. So they went from 53% to 66%. So the interactive transcript group really showed twice as much improvement with their scores. And that could be because of the interactive transcripts, but it could also be because the way that the interactive transcripts facilitate their video watching, and we’ll actually talk about this on this next slide is that students may not be watching the recorded videos as much as we think.

On average, I believe Lyman mentioned that there was a little over 27 hours of video footage in the course, and on average, participants watched 11 hours and 14 minutes of the video. So that’s only 40% of the available content, but the students who were in the interactive transcript group seemed to watch slightly more than the average, which was about 11 hours and 52 minutes per student that was in the interactive transcript group. And about half of the participants watched very little, but there were a few in the middle.

So in this closed captioning group, we had seven participants who watched 37% or less of the content, eight participants who watched 50% or more of the content, and then we had three participants in that closed captioning group that did not watch any content. Looking at the interactive transcript group, nine participants watched 26% or less of the content, eight participants watched 67% or more of the content, and only two participants didn’t watch any content at all. And so that’s how those two groups broke down in terms of how much video they watched.

Next, we wanted to look at, OK, did they log in and watch the videos all in one go, or did they sort of take multiple sessions to view a video? And what we found was most students took multiple sessions. They were watching them in brief video sessions with the closed captioning group averaging about five sessions per video and at about five minutes per each session as the average, and the interactive transcript group was about four sessions per video and about eight minutes per session. And so what that’s telling us is possibly that the interactive transcript maybe facilitated longer watching of the videos and in fewer sessions.

A sixth finding that we had was students tend to leave the captions on. As Lyman mentioned, the closed captioning group– their videos started with the closed captions on, and in the interactive transcript group, theirs started with the interactive transcripts on. And then the students had the opportunity to turn them off. So the majority of students never turned off their captioning feature in the closed captioning group, and a handful turned them off just a few times across a dozen viewing sessions. And we really only had one participant who regularly turned them off for the full viewing session, and it could have been because they found them distracting.

Our next finding was that the interactive transcript tools aren’t used by everyone, but some of the students were very, very heavy users. So in the interactive transcript group, the average was that students searched for about nine words on average. Seven participants, so seven of the 19 students that were in that group, used this capability to use the search function, and four of them looked for at least 22 words, and one searched for a total of 68 words. So that student was sort of a heavy user of that feature. And on average, the interactive transcript group clicked on about 20 words, and so 10 participants made use of the feature where you can click on a word within the transcript that shows below the video. And that word will actually take you to that point in the video.

So some students may have used those words to navigate throughout the video. 10 participants made use of that feature, and one participant clicked on 277 words. The remaining nine participants clicked on an average of about 10 words each. So that’s how they were using the clickable transcript feature.

We also found that those who find closed captioning distracting, it’s mainly because it takes their focus away from what’s being said. And really, we asked them, if you find closed captioning distracting, why? One of the themes was because it makes listening harder, and, for example, one of the students said, only because I caught myself reading instead of listening. Some students found that it was due to the errors in the captions. They found that there were a lot of incorrect spelling or terminology, and this could be the case. There’s always errors in a closed captioning transcript.

And the other theme that emerged was because of technical problems. And this is something that we kind of knew about, and we still haven’t really found a way to fix. When you take a video into full screen mode, the captions no longer appear below the video. They go back over the video, and if an instructor is using any sort of visual aid or PowerPoint, it covers up a portion of that content. And so that’s still something that we have to explore how to accommodate.

So those were really the main findings that we had, and sort of what we’ve drawn from that is really making sure that we touch on a couple of points. So here’s really what’s up for discussion at our institution and probably at quite a few institutions that you all represent as well. So some of our takeaways were that we want to make sure we’re educating administrators. We undertook this project at our institution with the goal of educating administrators on our campus about the value of both captioning and interactive transcripts, and really making sure that we’re making good recommendations for what we should invest our time and money in in order to support those students.

Given that administration on our campus is especially focused upon our state-defined funding performance metrics, it’s important that we communicate to them the value of captioning and interactive transcripts for student academic success. We want to make sure that we’re speaking their language, and I’m sure we have a feeling that your administrators speak that language as well. It all comes down to metrics and success. And so the more that we can show how this benefits the students academically, as well as meeting an access need, the more buy-in and backup we can get from them.

Second is that we want to recommend educating and training faculty about the value of online accessibility features. This is just something that is an awareness issue that could be within the faculty in your institutions. So something we’ve found successful is looking for well-respected department champions, who can share their positive accessibility experiences with their colleagues, and look for opportunities to share this information at department, college, or campus-wide meetings. We really try here, and we try that with our faculty champions and through training and meetings, to develop a culture that really values universal design, which Lyman mentioned earlier as a framework for learning, as well as accessibility methods, and attempting to tie those issues to things that matter for our academic audience or our faculty members.

We also want to make sure that students are trained on how to best make use of the accessibility tools. So whatever method or feature you’re using in your course, whether it be captions or interactive transcript, making sure that students have some sort of orientation or overview of how those tools work so that they can really make them work for them and for their learning needs.

We also want to make sure that we consider accessibility guidelines. We have a few policies and guidelines at our institution that we’ve been working with that we would be happy to share with anybody, if they want to email us after the webinar. But this is something that sort of makes things official, and it can be shared and promoted campus-wide. And knowing that there’s official institutional backing behind it really helps everybody take it on as a group shared responsibility.

We also recommend to consider a committee, such as the one that we have here at USF St. Petersburg. It has been really, really helpful to have this interdisciplinary committee that consists of staff members involved in online learning, working with students with disabilities. We have faculty from each of our colleges here just to make sure that the work that we’re doing speaks to our students’ needs and is really provided to our faculty and our staff members in a way that’s useful for them. And so that’s been a really helpful opportunity for us.

We also encourage looking for friends doing similar work and sharing. We have made a lot of contacts with other institutions in Florida, as well as other institutions that we meet when we go to present at conferences, and there’s always a great environment of sharing– sharing policies that have worked, sharing research results, helping people make sure that they have the resources they need to have these conversations with their educational administrators. And we’ve decided that there’s definitely a need for further research.

Here, at the institution, we’re looking at expanding the research by recruiting more students. Now that we know the limitation we had with the pre- and post-test, if we make sure we control for that and recruit more students– that course we worked with originally had 185 students enrolled, so we thought we were going to have a really big number to work with. But we’ve now discussed expanding it to other classes so that we have more students to compare with. Testing in different courses– so that was an upper level psychology course, but how might this tool be beneficial to our students in our lower level undergraduate courses, or even at our graduate courses?

And then testing with videos produced solely for online students, so when we talked about the amount of video that was on that course, it may have sounded like a lot to folks, because that was a lecture capture course, and it was put online knowing that it would be a lecture capture course, where they are full length lectures. But a lot of our courses that go online actually have shorter video lessons, where the instructional content is chunked for students, where the videos are somewhere around 10 to 20 minutes at a time. And so what we really want to do is explore the tools used on videos at that length, and see how they affect the student interactions and support, as well as the academic gains in those courses as well.

So I think that’s all we have in terms of sharing with you what we’ve learned from this research, and now I think we’ll turn things back over to Sofia so that we can open things up for questions and comments from the folks attending the webinar.

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Yes, thank you so much. So the first question we have here is, where were the students watching these videos? For example, were they watching on desktops, laptops, tablets, or mobile phones? And what were their different experiences?

KARLA MORRIS: You know, we didn’t really have a means to track where they were watching them, and it wasn’t something that we included in our post-test survey. That’s certainly something that we should definitely look into. We don’t really have a way of knowing what type of platform those students were on.

LYMAN DUKES III: It is worth mentioning that, certainly, these videos would be accessible on any of the tools that were mentioned in the question. So it could be all of them, or it could be some of them. But yeah, the content in the online courses was developed so that it’s available or it’s accessible on any device.

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Great, thank you. Someone else is asking, I would be interested in any correlation between grades and viewing. Did the three students who never accessed the videos do well in the course?

LYMAN DUKES III: That’s a good question. I think we have that data, but we have not drilled down to that level yet. It’s something that I’m inclined to do now that this person’s asked. I’d be curious. I would add that we were– well, perhaps, I should speak for myself, but I think the group would agree. We were surprised and troubled by the data that we got when we began to look at how much video students were actually viewing course by course. And it’s certainly given us pause and cause for reflection about the ways in which video should be offered to students in online courses in the future.

So Karla mentioned just a moment ago the fact that some courses chunk the online video content in different ways, so full length lecture capture is one. It’s the one that was employed in this course. But other faculty have chosen other ways to present and deliver that information in shorter videos.

We certainly want to look at maybe differences in student performance and student satisfaction with the various types of videos that are offered, and really drill down to looking at actual data regarding how often students watch, because it probably won’t surprise anyone that student report and actual student behavior may well be different. So yes, we don’t know how those three did. But that particular piece of our dataset really stood out to us.

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Great. Thank you. Someone else is asking, can you elaborate how you’re using these findings to change your approach or how you’re approaching faculty?

KARLA MORRIS: Yeah, absolutely. So I can speak to it from the perspective of our instructional designers. So our original study, when we looked at the closed captioning, that was what really affected the ability for us to get a budget for captioning and a policy and a guideline here on our campus. Looking at what we’ve done so far with interactive transcript, we really don’t feel that we’ve had enough data to show that we want to make the shift to also adding interactive transcript as a required part of our transcribing and captioning process. So at this point, we’re still continuing forward with just closed captioning all of our media, and we will continue to look with this committee at the data that comes out of further studies with interactive transcripts, because there is a significant time– manpower involved in making that an additional piece to add to all of the media in our courses.

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Great. Thank you. Someone else is asking, were there certain subjects that students found most helpful to have these interactive transcripts in?

LYMAN DUKES III: Well, in this particular case, we just looked at a fully online upper division psychology course. Certainly, one of the goals that we have in the near term is to look at the use of the interactive transcript in courses other than this psychology course. And at that point, we’d be in a better position to employ it or to answer that question, I should say. I think it’s worth reinforcing that in terms of student report in the current study, the vast majority of them certainly indicated that they found the interactive transcript of benefit. And we also were able to demonstrate with this set of students that we saw improvement in grades.

I don’t know if we’ve gathered this information, Karla. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I know in the captioning study that was done a few years back, we asked students– well, we actually looked at student satisfaction with the course overall. So in other words, the evaluation of faculty that were teaching the course in which we did the captioning study. And in almost all cases, that is, with almost every question that students were asked with respect to faculty evaluation, faculty were rated more highly in the course in which captioning was used versus the course in which captioning was not used. And that stood out, and I thought it was an interesting finding. We did not do that with the interactive transcript study that we recently completed, however.

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Thank you. Someone else is asking, I know you mentioned universal design for learning as a basis for the study, but did you look at different learning theories dealing with multimedia, such as cognitive theory of multimedia learning?

KARLA MORRIS: We did not in this study, but it’s actually something that we want to make sure we incorporate into the next study. Sort of looking at the way that they use the multimedia and the viewing habits there is something that we’ve slowly been infusing more and more into these studies, and so I know that that’s going to be more of a focus in our next study.

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Thank you. Someone else is asking, what were the most alarming, and what were the most surprising aspects of the study for you both?

KARLA MORRIS: I mean, alarming, personally, was the students who didn’t watch any video. But I think in some ways, we kind of predicted what we– we got what we predicted we would get that students found interactive transcripts helpful. I think what is surprising is that maybe there’s not as much of a significant difference between the two groups to prove whether or not it’s that much more beneficial. And I think that we’ll be able to pull that out more with a larger group in a future study. And so just keep moving forward is really what we’ve taken from this.

LYMAN DUKES III: There’s one thing I want to add, and I’m not entirely sure that I’m answering a question that was asked. But I do think it’s worth reinforcing, and we did mention it a few minutes back. And I don’t know how many disability services people or people that have experience in that field are with us today, but as a sort of a special education expert, it was interesting to me to learn that the data that we saw when we asked students about whether or not they had a disability and whether or not they were actually registered with our campus Student Disability Services office in this interactive transcript study and the captioning study was consistent with national data that indicate that approximately 2/3 of students with disabilities leave high school, enter a post-secondary institution, and do not self-disclose.

As a function of that, it does mean that we have many students with disabilities sitting in college courses, who will benefit from these types of academic approaches, if you will, these instructional approaches, these instructional tools and methods that we’ve talked about. And again, having also served in an administrative role on my campus, I know how important it is to administrators that we focus upon student engagement at this point in our professional world and our academic milieu, if you will.

So this really is a critical way to ensure that students with disabilities, but also, other students have tools available to them that will allow them to have the best chance of success in the courses that they’re taking.

SOFIA ENAMORADO: Thank you. I want to thank everyone for joining, and especially thank you to you, Lyman and Karla, for such a great presentation. And I hope that everyone has a great rest of their day.

KARLA MORRIS: Thank you so much.

LYMAN DUKES III: Thank you.