by Jocasta Williams
Across higher education, moving didactic content online for asynchronous engagement is no longer novel. What remains difficult is knowing whether it’s actually working.
At Australian Catholic University (ACU), that question became a central focus for the Centre for Education and Innovation (CEI) as part of a major first-year curriculum redesign. The university has used EchoVideo extensively to shift knowledge-heavy teaching into short, pre-recorded videos, reserving face-to-face time to focus on active learning. The result is significant: thousands of videos, millions of views, and a rare opportunity to look closely at how students really engage. Three million views later, the university has learned something important: video engagement is more nuanced – and more encouraging – than many might assume.
With such a large dataset, the CEI team quickly realised that video ‘interactions’ cannot be reduced to a single metric. There is high-level viewing data – how many students click play and how often they return – and deeper engagement data that reveals what students do after they click play. CEI Multimedia Developer Jacob Dyer puts it succinctly: “access and attention are not the same thing.”
In a flipped teaching model, this distinction matters. If students don’t engage before class, in-person time cannot build effectively on that foundation. Once they do click play, new questions emerge: Do they stay? Do they skip? Do they rewatch specific sections?
Data from CEI’s analysis of EchoVideo usage across selected first-year units shows that the vast majority of students who begin a video watch most of it. Within that pattern, though, there is variation. Some skim. Some jump forward. Some rewatch key sections multiple times. At first glance, this behaviour can feel discouraging, yet the data invites a more generous interpretation.
What initially looks like avoidance or ‘surface’ engagement often reflects active decision-making, with students seeking what they need rather than passively consuming everything presented.
One of the most striking findings across ACU’s courses is that selective viewing is not confined to struggling students.
“Even our high-achieving students will choose to not engage with all the content all the time,” Jacob says.
“They’re managing their load – deciding what they need to engage with and what they don’t – which is something that all students have to deal with as they balance commitments inside and outside of university.”
The reality that students are not watching every piece of carefully curated content can be uncomfortable. Many courses assume comprehensive, sequential engagement. Jacob’s analysis of the data suggests otherwise. Students, including high-performing students, make strategic decisions about how they allocate their time. They may skip introductory framing, fast-forward to worked examples, or revisit assessment-relevant segments repeatedly. Rather than interpreting this as a deficit, the CEI team increasingly views this behaviour as evidence of student self-regulation.
This does not mean the system is perfect. It does suggest that it may not be realistic, nor necessary, for all content to be viewed. The more productive challenge is designing materials that are clear, navigable and valuable enough that when students prioritise, they prioritise well.
Across ACU units, one pattern is remarkably consistent: engagement is highest in the first week of the study period.
“Every source of data that we have tells us that we will never have a more engaged cohort than in week one of semester one,” Jacob explains. “That’s when all the students are engaged in the LMS, when they’re on campus, when they’re attending face-to-face classes – it’s when you’ve got your best window to engage your cohort.”
In a flipped approach, where behavioural norms are critical, that insight carries practical weight. Students need to understand early that online preparation is expected and that face-to-face time will build on – not repeat – that material. If that expectation is not established while attention is high, it becomes harder to recover later.
The beginning of the academic study period is also an opportunity to demonstrate value. If early content feels perfunctory or disconnected, students may conclude that engagement is optional. As Jacob advises, this means considering how to “front load your course with some really interesting material to inspire your students and spark their engagement.” That first experience often shapes what follows.
Another clear pattern in the dataset is that students gravitate toward content that’s tightly aligned with assessment and professional skills. When videos directly demonstrate practical tasks or unpack exam-relevant concepts, engagement spikes – often immediately before assessments. Students return to these resources when they need them.
The lesson is not that everything must revolve around assessment. Rather, clarity of purpose drives engagement. When students can see how a resource supports their performance – in class, in assessment, or in professional practice – they are far more likely to invest time in it.
One of the key takeaways is pragmatic: separate the problems. If students are not clicking play, the issue may relate to behavioural norms or workload pressures. If they are clicking play but leaving early, the issue may be perceived relevance or value. Treating all ‘low engagement’ as the same obscures useful distinctions.
Three million views later, this CEI-led initiative has not uncovered a formula for perfect engagement – but it has gained clarity. Video analytics does more than measure attention; it reveals patterns of behaviour. Interpreted thoughtfully, those patterns provide actionable insight and reassurance. Not viewing does not equal disengagement; students are making deliberate choices, revisiting and prioritising content in ways that reflect the realities of contemporary study. Understanding those choices is the first step toward designing learning that works with them, rather than against them.
