 cameras switched off at the moment because it didn't allow me to do many tabs open, things like that. But anyways, what's important is that you can see the screen. If there's any echo problems in the house or in the hair when I'm in this room, please do let me know. I'll try and speak softer because I can hear some echo already. Okay, anyways, let's maybe make a start. Well, thank you all for joining me today in one of our Tech Thursday events. Usually happens at the end of the month, but there was some problems with registration, I understand, last time. So we planned it today. Desinda or Edith wanna come in and say anything before me or am I good to go? I think you're good to go. Yeah, okay, I'll take that as I'm good to go. Okay, so as you know, my name is Manish Malik. At that time when I was doing this research, I was a PhD student with Lancaster University. Since then, obviously I have completed it. But this has been a long time coming for me. I've been in the higher education sector for more than 19 years. And this was something that I always wanted to investigate in a greater detail. So I began maybe like six years ago and part-time alongside my job. Yeah, I'm enrolled on this wonderful e-research program in the Department of Education Research in Lancaster. But yeah, and so in the meantime, I was developing lots of software for teaching and learning applications for my own use and the use of other people in my department, in my university. So I just thought that it would be a good idea to investigate one of the softwares that I made in greater detail. So for those of you who are interested in orchestration, this is a term used by Pierre Dillenberg and many other researchers. And that's to give an action that almost all teachers do in classrooms. They manage the teaching time and the different activities that students are required to take part in. So what I thought, if all of that can be done through technology, then what will happen? So that was my question in my mind. Will it have any benefits for the students? It may have benefits for staff because then they are free to do other things. But are there any actual benefits for students? Because the reason we are going to do things differently is primarily for the benefit of students. So I thought, okay, let's not only investigate the effect of this for the average student but also bring in a little bit of angle of disability in it because if you have technology, it may have benefits for people with disabilities. So I set out to look for developing team working skills, things like trust, certificate, communication, and so on, co-regulation skills and so on between teammates who are a mix of neuro-typical and neuro-atypical. So people who are neuro-atypical are people who have autism, ADHD, but to a level where they can be successful in higher education but they have special needs. Okay, so I like the problem statement itself. Some motivation for doing the research and so on and intervention details, research design, findings and conclusion in that order. Because I've been teaching in the engineering academic sort of domain for the last 19 years and we've seen courses go from non-PBL to PBL and back to non-PBL in some cases. And I know from firsthand that there are some problems associated with project-based learning, problem-based learning. We use them, but we then have some unsolved situations. Likewise, I've been fit clip cast from very popular across the sector and in engineering as well. People do use it, but we often face that question of will the students come prepared to the class? And if they don't, how do you then use the skills and knowledge that students have? What's the best approach there? So I thought both of these are collaborative approaches. If I apply the technology that I have built in these settings, I might find some interesting results in particular around the area of developing skills and attitudes for team working because both have an element of collaboration involved. Because if you ask students to learn things outside the class and flip classroom, inside the class, they're doing some collaborative stuff and project-based learning and teams, they are working on projects. So they require these skills. And going back to that problem of flipping in and out of these things, these approaches, often staff will find and students will complain that these approaches require a greater socio-cognitive involvement demands from them and so on. And not everybody is good with team working in the very first attempt at it. Some people are, some are not. So it could end up in a ineffective and efficient sort of even non-inclusive if people have socio-cognitive disorders, then it's very hard for them to fully benefit from team working, although exposing, I believe, exposing more team working scenarios to everyone is generally a benefit for all people. So with that in mind, we don't really have a set way to run these techniques, approaches and benefit everybody equally. I thought, okay, what do we already know and about team working and what can we further investigate? So I came across a literature on team effectiveness and it kind of links team effectiveness to multiple things. One of them is trust between teammates, which is a term which is quite often found in industrial organization psychology literature. However, it's hardly studied in educational studies because it takes a long time to build the trust. By the time it takes seven or eight weeks to build that trust between teammates, most semesters are nearly to the end. And so I guess there's lack of study because of that reason that people think, okay, by the time it will be, you'll figure out something about trust, it will be probably already be too late. So we have to find some other ways of making teams effective. But in the industry, this is an important area. So I thought if we can speed up the buildup of trust through technology, because as technology often does, it does things more, sometimes more efficiently, sometimes more usefully for some people and so on. So I thought maybe maybe there's something there. So how can we develop trust within educational settings and how can we do it with technology? So that was one of my areas. Then the other thing I found in the effectiveness literature, team effectiveness literature was to do with conflict management. Students or people with better conflict management skills results in better effective teams. So I thought maybe that's not so much often of a problem within educational teams because people don't end up pulling out each other's hairs and hair and over matters. But then I thought, oh, maybe sometimes about marks, there are quarrels in the educational teams and student teams. They can be very vocal about who gets what. So maybe there are some reasons to study that. But then again, there was a huge piece of literature around technology enhanced team orchestration and therein I found references to self-co and socially shared regulation skills. Now I'll elaborate on these a bit later, but these are starting from self-assist. It's about more about how a person is keeping themselves motivated and engaged with the learning and with the team working. How they're able to support one other member, so that's core regulation and how they're able to together regulate each other as a team, so that's socially shared regulation in order to achieve the goals of whatever it is that you're doing in your project-based learning or flip classroom as a team, whatever it is. So that everybody can pull together towards one simple goal and so on to make the team effective. So this was the model that I found and so again, I wanted to study people with neurotypical and neurotypical categories within those categories. And I thought, let's just dwell a little bit more on that and found out that autistic students, they struggle with building the trust. They could be either under or over trusting of other people and that might end always in a happy place for them. And equally, trusting people who are autistic could also be difficult for non-autistic people because of the maybe behavioral or the lack of social skills perhaps or communication issues, whatever is needed to build the trust is it can happen on both sides. So I found that there's some sort of evidence about that in the literature, but never been studied within all educational teams. So I thought, okay, well, that's something to look out for as well in my study. And again, regarding conflict, autistic students or people with autism may be prone to avoid conflict altogether because from their past experiences with it, it is not a pleasant experience that they instead of trying to resolve, they might be wanting to avoid. So they might have a preference towards avoiding which could also be a problem in teams. And there is some evidence that autistic students or people will not engage in regulating other people because that could be, they're not comfortable with that particular form of regulation. So one other person may be fine with the team, but not so much at a one-to-one level. Likewise, often with ASD comes ADHD as a comorbid condition and that can also have implications on team working because people with ADHD may prefer a certain structure, a certain way of working to keep them focused and keep them involved in that kind of blocks the communication perhaps with other people around them. Now, I'm making some sweeping statements here, but I think what I'm kind of find similarities to those statements in my data. So I'm okay to be able to do that. Make those statements because my data was kind of saying that as well. Anyways, and in terms of within institutions, support for near or atypical students tend to be in the form of reasonable adjustments or training just for them, students separately for whatever reasons, the institutions tend to provide that kind of support. Now, I thought maybe if people are put together and the orchestration is done by technology and it's very effective, then perhaps we don't need to have the extra non-contextual training because people need to learn to work with each other first and then when they have that skill then they can maybe transfer it to other people and it's always very difficult for people who are autistic to form that bond with some new people all of a sudden. So if you're getting training about team working in a different environment and you're working in a different environment, that kind of didn't sit well with me. So I thought there should be something which allows the training together while you're working in the team and that's what I wanted to see if there is any solution there. So yeah, so the idea was to include people in team working rather than have them separately undergo trainings. So this is the intervention that I came up with. I over maybe two years developed different versions of Coggle which is a computer orchestrated group learning environment. And it basically uses things like you may have heard of mastery which is used in Khan Academy and many other online systems where people are doing learning on their own but they have to attempt, let's say 10 questions, eight questions, seven questions, whatever it is to master a particular topic and then they move on to the next up and branch off into different topics and so on. But in this case, my environment is a group environment. So I wanted to orchestrate the whole group towards mastery. So I thought, okay, we'll build something which extends the mastery concept to the whole group. And to do so, we use multiple choice questions which kind of is Eric Mizzou's peer instruction style of peers teaching each other, helping each other. So the whole group was kind of orchestrated to talk to each other at different points based on their answers and so on. So there's a bit of that in the system and also there is some prompting and messaging from the system itself to help students watch a video that helps basically understand a topic which is not quite understood by the group and that comes from skilled sort of question design than options chosen in a particular way that highlight a cognitive conflict and if two options are there which is causing a cognitive conflict, it's easy to then resolve that cognitive conflict by playing a video that is related to that cognitive conflict. And so all of that is there in the system and by repeated sort of messaging from the system in the textual domain, the messages that the screen plays out to students to do certain things to become better, to master the topic as a group basically can help internalizing good team working skills and so that was the idea behind it. Things like externalizing what to do when you're in a difficulty always saying things like, oh, teamwork is dream work that kind of motivational things, metacognitive skills around team working those messages are there in the system and they play out at different situations and so on. So not only that, the system also gives you an indication of how the team is performing who are the strong students who need a little bit of support and so on within the group and after a little while even when the system's been used these kinds of messages are shown to students so they can look out and start to work as a team and develop people in the team as they go along and as they chase this goal of group-wide mastery if you like. So I do have a video, I don't know whether that'll function. Any feedback will be better. I don't know if you can see the video so this is how a student will go into a room and then they'll wait for their other friends to join the same room. So this is all in front of one computer three people sitting in front of a computer four people sitting in front of a computer with their mobile phones they can log in but they're looking at one screen and that screen is in front of us at the minute and these are, okay, we'll talk about these four squares in a minute. So these are people coming in into the room together to learn then they watch a video on a topic together on one screen so they're not watching it separately they're watching together so building that community field and then they are asked 10 questions, 12 questions one after the other and they all have to using these keypad look at the question options on the screen and then go for A, B, C, D individually each team member does that and then all of them have answered it goes and says, yeah, that's a great answer well done mastering together master this together teamwork phase those are the kind of prompts I was saying earlier. So that's how the system continues to orchestrate team working by allowing people to join into one screen and read the prompts and take the quiz together rather than doing it individually separately. So this is the whole group when they reach to a stage when they're halfway through the cycle halfway through the round the system will show them a team performance graph which will come in a minute maybe I can skip that a bit I don't wanna skip it too much Okay, so here somebody got a question wrong and as you can see their progress has been resetted and two people have been put together to talk to each other. So these are these the orchestration is like this so the machine tells who talks to who and when and now they gain all over again to the journey of mastery are you getting 10 questions correct in a row? You can set it to six if you have to frustrating for students but yes, it can be frustrating but that's the important bit that that frustration because of having to do more question pulls them together as well gets them going as a team. Anyways, you saw a graph a few seconds ago that graph shows your progress and it should be really a steep green line but they are red phases in between means people have made mistakes and so on and they can even choose who they want to explain a particular question if they have a preferred person and so on so there are many features in there students don't often use all the features but they're in there if somebody wanted to use and that's how it keeps going and at some stage it will say well done to the team that they have answered so you can see the green tracker on the top here it's increasing every time a correct answer is made but it scores back down if a mistake is made so that pulls the teammates together working towards the goal of group-wide mastery and if they need help from the system as you can see there was a little video being played then that is based on the weaknesses of that team at that moment in time a particular video has been chosen by the system to improve the knowledge that the team seems to not have at the minute so the system is doing that in the background some kind of calculations on that okay so eventually they go to that stage where they are able to master and that's it that's one topic done and then they can move on to the other topics okay so yeah so one of the findings in the study was these penalties of having to restart the count towards mastery was frustrating students and that would trigger some kind of emotive discussion between people even bad wrong behavior in the system but then the system to really get mastery if they have to follow the scripts that are written into the system and many people in fact all of the teams were auto-correcting their behavior to really then come together towards that one goal of mastery so the frustration was there but it was helpful like a kind of a positive frustration so how do I evaluate the system? I created two, three different case studies actually one of them had these computer orchestrated learning sessions, learning together sessions there were four of them in which they learned electronics related topics which helped them then go on design in a student orchestrated working together session some kind of flip class activity a flip class room activity where they would build a little circuit based on the knowledge that they have captured in these sessions so you can see, we can view this as this is the outside bit and this is the in-class bit of the flip classroom only that what I'm enforcing now is I'm asking them to come inside the class without the teacher using the machine and study on their own so instead of flipping the room classroom to home I'm just saying you stay in the classroom but the flip is that the teacher is not there the machine is there and here again, they can be with the teacher but in the study for the purposes of the study I just didn't play any part as a teacher there I was an observer so here it's completely student orchestrated there's no teacher whatsoever in the whole activity then again, I wanted to repeat that but for a slightly longer period to see what happens there and this was completely accidental I didn't know what will happen I just designed four sessions worth of content for the flip classroom and I thought, okay if they wanna do a little bit bigger project they need a little bit more so I added three extra old sessions in which they learned a bit more advanced topics so they could design not only a filter but also an amplifier or that kind of thing so in the project this group, the sum of the study did the full filter and an amplifier this sum of the study did only the filter and you'll see that their levels of students that came into the study were also from different groups so one of them was foundation here and then this one was the first year of electronic engineering and then I wanted to repeat this in a case where Coggle was not used so we get an understanding or like a benchmark of what happens when machine is not there or when the students are left to their devices on their own to work together for I could have chosen flip classroom but I thought, okay let's use the seventh session one as a comparison because I wanted to study the long term effect of this kind of work and see when the trust builds up in because it would probably not build up in four sessions that was the theory that was a literature pointing out so I thought, okay let's do it seven sessions see if by seven sessions what the literature says the trust will come in well, does that come in? So I did it in this way so these students they watched the same videos that I had in Coggle they had the same questions but just the orchestration was not there the technology orchestration was not there and yeah so that's the structure of the study and at different points I took some measurements I measured not only trust related data but also to ask students to record daily key events and so get a bit of qualitative as well as quantitative data on trust on team working skills and yeah people how they are feeling how they're learning that that kind of question is that I either use some pre-existing ones or made my own ones for mainly for the qualitative and at the end of the SWOT activities they were interviews qualitative interviews one hour long interviews for neurotypical students and probably nearly 1.5 to two hours for the neurotypical because it takes longer to discuss all the issues of interest in this so that's how I did so there was a if you wanna use the technical terms where there was one theoretical replication over here and then there was one other one the analytical some replication here literal replication sorry yeah so this was a literal replication using Coggle here as well as here but then try and see what happens when you don't have Coggle will the seven weeks be enough for them to become a team as long as they use the same content the same questions and without the teacher so that's what's the overall design okay so different cases were investigated and yeah I did some calculations on their scores on a pre-test and a post-test and used to use that to calculate the learning gain also did some data and method of triangulation from quantitative, qualitative across the cases that kind of data from after analyzing them using grounded theory based thematic analysis but also using normal sort of bucket themes to apply to the data that I already had so I massaged the data from all different angles and to see where what is it that I can glean from it yeah so this was the overall model and now to the findings in the first case where we had used Coggle in a flip classroom setting we had six students which were then split into two teams this was random teams they didn't know each other their first year into the foundation program and in the very first week in the induction week I picked them out of their comfort zone and said now let's do this one of them declared as autistic which was a self-diagnose rather than a proper diagnose but they had a son who had been diagnosed so it was their assumption that they might also be autistic but they never had a formal diagnosis but they had lived with it for many many years and they suspected that they had anyway so the age range was as you can see from 18 to 54 in this case and then I evaluated about how the Coggle system affected people's efficacy of the subject self-efficacy about the subject and also their self-regulation skills is to by working in this environment does it make any difference to their self-regulation capabilities how you can they plan to reflect to view that that sort of thing so the pre and post test difference was significant the Wilcoxon-San-Rang test and the learning gains normalised learning gains were all positive one was small but then the others were more than 0.3 in terms of the qualitative themes that came from the grounded theory inspired thematic analysis self-efficacy itself was one of the themes people saying now I know the subject I'm feeling confident about it having helped others or being helped by others that sort of thing and so there were two sources of qualitative one was the SSRL survey the socially shared regulation survey in which six on six students they were themes related to self-efficacy in the interview data however they were four of them were reiterating the fact that they were completely confident about the subject the other two one of them was the autistic student and the other one was a neurotypical student they just said that if we had more time perhaps we would have learnt even more so it wasn't denying that they learnt anything but they felt that by doing a little bit more it would be more beneficial and also I evaluated the work that they did I either designed that filter so I marked that based on their work and both the teams had a high score to support that they knew as a team individually as well as a team the topics and they could design the filter that I had put in front of them and these are foundation students that probably never ever designed a filter before so within four sessions they are able to do that with a high score so that was good to see in terms of trust I can maybe pull up all the points and then talk about them yeah so in terms of quantitative results about trust I use a survey that has been used elsewhere that has been tested for validity and so on and the statements that were there they assessed three different types of trust the effective trust which is people happy to work together with each other cognitive trust which is people have trust in other people to know the subject and cognitive trust is like somebody who will do what they say they will be there when the team is meeting in that kind of area so statements would sort of capture those emotions those feelings from these respondents and as you can see at the start even from in this this is the number of people who express trust in others in their team so by giving a like a score of five or more so five people even at the start of the very first day of the study are saying oh yeah I trust I like my teammates I have effective trust in them so that's what they were saying they think they could work with all other people five of them out of the six two of them didn't know they said yeah they must be all good with their knowledge as well but the other four they reserved their comments they said okay we don't know yet we'll find out and likewise three said yeah they're reliable but the other three preserved their comments and no I don't know yet so different people take different stances and this is kind of reflective of that that's good but after the four sessions on using Koggle for two hours in each session mastering the topics each time this is what they rated their teammates as so now from five to six people really liked each other to work so the effective trust is there and they have also now a better understanding of who knows what so cognitive trust is there one person not so and then the cognitive trust for having worked together for four sessions that's kind of shot up as well because teammates were there mostly and there was one student out of one team in each team not there for one session but they could join remotely in the system that was the good thing about it so it was a hybrid system even before the pandemic anyways so six people yeah six five and six after four sessions just before the flip classroom activity I measured again just to see whether that had changed has any impact on it so that kind of the same apart from one person going down on the cognitive trust that was perhaps due to one person coming in a bit late in the flip classroom activity session but anyways what is interesting is that then it dropped afterwards but that's another matter but we can talk about that so trust was up in ASD student and ASD student was expressing from their past that they are they're over trusting and this kind of thing but they were able to correct that and they were able to trust other people correctly like they were able to place the correct level of trust in their teammates they weren't like they started off with very high scores of sevens for all of the three aspects of trust but then they came down from seven to six to five in some cases but they still trusted the others because that was the case as you can see in this data qualitatively themes from both the interview and the survey are suggesting that COGEL helped build trust in many ways not just it helps effective trust to grow cognitive trust to go or cognitive trust to go and even if these three are the categories there are multiple ways that these three can be enhanced so and the same kind of findings were reiterated in the one-to-one interviews that I conducted of course the activity was a success itself so that could be a way to reflect on the trust that was there in the team like oh they worked fine their scores were high and there was no dispute and anything so that should be an indication that trust had built okay so case two I'll go a bit quicker because I've spent a lot of time explaining each thing there so again similar things, similar results from the self efficacy you can see in both the themes things were dipping in and out of confidence and trust as well as the topics grew a little harder in there but COGEL would step in and support the students as that would happen as well so that's helped the teams to continue to work together for a longer extended period of time and this teams, the teams here they were like three teams two teams of three and one team of four and there were these sort of splits between the number of people who had ADHD or ASTs is shown here age range is shown there as well so out of the three teams all of them had scores above 50 if I can recall 60, 50 something, 55, 56 and the other two teams had 70 and 80 something like that so very high score on two and good enough score on one so nobody was like, okay we can't do this but they did it and so on first wise again you can see they started off with high scores high number of people trusting each other effectively even cognitively without even knowing each other I don't know how that works but people just didn't wanna say maybe but anyways after the determinism there you can see after the seven sessions nine people say we trust each other there was one who didn't and then there were variations after seven sessions from oh sorry let me think yeah this is after four sessions yeah 999 is after four sessions and 1087 after seven sessions and just before the PJBL activity I measured it again to see what is the state of things at that point you can see the 10, 10, nine people are saying that they trust each other but it again also dropped after the peak classroom activity so I'll be a little quicker it's a similar story here and in the third case likely difference in scenario where there's no coggler people are watching the videos asking answering the questions the questions are the same then they don't have any multiple choice engine to orchestrate interaction or things like that so here you can see it was not significant the learning gain not all the learning gains were even positive so there was already a difference in the learning that was achieved in the two different settings coggler no coggler again students were talking about that they haven't quite benefited from this interaction from learning together in front of a computer together but without anybody's guidance that this has not worked for them so they learned some things but not quite everything and on the negative sort of reverse theme was new little and then majority was saying that they actually didn't know much after seven sessions even they had low self-efficacy expressed in their interview data as well and so on and finally the trust you can see after four sessions the trust is probably gone down yeah even after four sessions of working together it has at least gone down in the cognitive they start to realize that nobody really knows anything here and the effective is probably the same and cognitive is very similar because they're turning up to the same sessions together that they're seeing each other but they're realizing that oh no not a lot of us know anything about this topic there were some variations after seven sessions so again the cognitive trust didn't move but because they have been together with seven sessions yes the six people are saying out of the seven in this case six are saying we have effective trust six are saying we have collated trust but only two are saying we have any cognitive trust in the others okay and just before the PJBL activity that's when I say okay here is a task for you to do okay I should have said PJBL here in the second one it's not FC but anyways so lower trust at start just before the PJBL activity even when you compare it to right from the very first day it's six has become five people four has become three five has become four people cognitive trust itself dropped after which has happened in others well in others I think they didn't quite specify cognitive but then there was a general drop anyways after the activity and the staggering thing was the autistic student the trust was really really down in them because people after working in unorchestrated teams were finding out that this person is not really communicating very well so maybe they're not a good teammate so the trust kind of really goes down over a period of time for autistic students and on the contrary the autistic student was the only one who had increased trust in the others so they were like over trusting from the word go and they just believed that the others were getting on well and teams were coming together and so on right so and the story continues in the teams in the quality of teams the psychological safety which is a term used in educational teams it kind of was showing up and it said well the data the teams were like five out of the six students where we're starting to realize that yes it's safe now because nobody knows anything about this topic we can open up and we can start to turn things around and maybe we can really understand this topic together so that has the effect of the psychological safety has that kind of effect on teams and it was starting to happen in this team as well but it was quite late like on the fourth or the fifth session or something like that and so late development of psychological safety instead of trust was a theme in the interview as well that the people were saying we don't really know that the students know the things we know that they don't know the things and therefore it's safe for us to open up there's no loss of face there's we can try and work together so that's what the data kind of found so I think I won't go into any further of my results and things I'll just stop at this point and let you ask the question have a discussion about these results rather than summarizing them myself because I'm conscious of time I've been speaking for a long time so over to you guys if you have questions and comments and suggestions for future work collaborations if you want or whatever I'm open to all kind of discussion now thank you for listening so Edith, all of you are pleased to be here do you want to come in with your questions? yes hello I have a question it's Matt from Southampton University I really enjoyed that amazing sort of work and really interesting and positive results my question or feedback is going to seem very very small in comparison to what you shared but I noticed in your demonstration of Kogel that you had the animations of the like applause or thumbs up icons that kind of thing and that I know that in some cases it's good to have an option to be able to turn those off for some people particularly if you have a vestibular issue or certain neuro-antipical attributes I just wanted to check whether you had included that as an option or otherwise it might be a suggestion for further developments sure I haven't actually thought about that and it didn't come up in the data either and all I could remember seeing when these animations were being played sort of students were enjoying and jubilating and saying hey we got it and they were replicating that the thumbs up as well so I know I didn't hear or read anything which had affected any of the students but yes I think since I've done this study I've made a list of things which I think should be optional and we can turn on and off because yes they may be features which are actually not as inclusive as I wanted to be so options are usually good so in that sense but yeah thank you for your input and I'll take that forward thank you I'll post in a link with a technique you probably already know about it I'll just I'll put a link for something you can have a look at if you're interested but I really enjoyed that thank you I don't have any other questions other than would you be sharing your slides at any point in case I wanted to point colleagues at it especially if the recording becomes available and like I saw a brilliant presentation I managed these are the slides and if you want to actually find out about it and watch the recording if the recording will be shared later then just makes it easy to tempt my colleagues to have a look at this as well so just can I ask Matthew so what is your role at Southampton? I'm a senior learning designer in the digital learning team so I'm not an actual teacher I'm more from the technical background but we have also been interested very interested in project-based learning, problem-based learning and also that kind of peer feedback not so much in terms of the peer support that you were getting here which is really interesting with that psychological comfort I can't remember the term off the top of my head but that you mentioned psychological safety but I have been talking with other academics in our engineering department who are quite keen because like you say particularly in engineering the students often will come in with very high A levels and they've been taught about from a very individual context and being focused on individuals but in the profession it's very rare that people work as individuals it's all about teams so they're very keen on building that those team-working attributes and they've been quite interested in looking at ways of measuring how much of a good team player people are in the groups to be able to show over the time so over the four years of their study how they have grown into that that's something which I just know is a wish at the moment it's not something that we have as a plan to aim at fulfilling it's just in my kind of my mental backlog of interesting ideas that we should take a look at so that's particularly why your piece here was kind of it showed another aspect to that that I found very interesting so that was a long answer to your question No, no, that's very good we will be releasing the recording I think Lucinda wanted to come in and confirm that as well, so yeah Yeah, absolutely so I think the new idea for all the special interest groups is that the recordings are going to be scooped up by the main ALT and then released under their auspices with links from the blog, I think Okay, anyone else has any further questions or comments or feedback? Much appreciated On that note though, I will stop the recording just in case anyone has any questions that they don't particularly want to record