The Use of Lecture Capture and Student Performance in Physiology

Abstract

Lecture capture technology is fairly new and has gained interest among higher institutions, faculty and students alike. Live-lecture (LL) is captured in real-time and this recording, LC, is made available for students to access for later use, whether it be for review purpose or to replace a missed class. Student performance was compared between those attending LL only and the other group utilizing LC in addition to LL in two randomly chosen lectures. We found that the overall exam performance was indistinguishable between the LL and the LC groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference in student performance between the two groups on questions that originated from these two lectures. Subsequently, the exam questions that came from these two lectures were separated into three Bloom's levels: memorization questions (MQ), comprehension questions (CQ), and application questions (AQ). Once again, there was no significant difference between these three tiers of questions. Additionally, we explored whether it is students with higher grades or lower grades in this course that were viewing LC and found that there was no correlation. This study thus suggests that LC is utilized by students of all grade levels but its exploitation is not associated with a grade enhancement at distinctive Bloom's levels.

Students' views on the use of ClassBoost in a teachers' education college

“…At the second measuring point, there was a relative reduction in the perception of a contribution by the ClassBoost system to learning from the student teachers' viewpoint. This aspect is in line with the findings of previous research, which found that use of LCT was not expressed in alterations in the learners' achievements (Bollmeier et al, ; Drouin, ; Hadgu, Huynh, & Gopalan, ; Pale et al, ). We estimate that the reduction in the perception of the contribution of the ClassBoost system to learning is also connected to the fact that not all the qualities of the ClassBoost system were exploited, and the students did not know about or were not exposed to all the means and possibilities of this system.…”

A case study: Views on the practice of opting in and out of lecture capture

“…Other research indicates that students believe lecture capture improves their performance because they are able to review difficult sections and revisit the material as often as needed (Al-Nashash and Gunn 2013; Groen et al 2016). However, studies using actual grades show a mixed picture, with some indicating a positive relationship between lecture capture availability/use and actual grades (Bollmeier et al 2010;Francom et al 2011; Wiese and Newton 2013;Yu et al 2015) and others reporting little or no relationship between the two (Abt and Barry 2007;Brotherton and Abowd 2004;Edwards and Clinton 2018;Hadgu et al 2016). Despite this mixed picture on performance, availability of lecture capture increases student satisfaction (Al-Nashash and Gunn 2013; Brecht and Ogilby 2008;Bryans Bongey et al 2006;Greenberg and Nilssen 2009;Secker et al 2010;Toppin 2011;Traphagan et al 2010;Veeramani and Bradley 2008;Woo et al 2008) and affects course choice such that modules with lecture capture are more likely to be selected (Vajoczki et al 2011;Watt et al 2014).…”

Understanding student use of resources in “rich-media” courses

“…Aldamen et al (2015) state that a slight positive relationship was observed between captured lecture viewership and performance in their class. However, others state that there is essentially no difference between video users and non-users (Bosshardt and Chiang, 2016;Hadgu et al, 2016;Williams et al, 2016). Day and Foley (2006) attempted to quantify the benefit of lecture capture material by dividing a class into two groups, a group who attended lectures as normal and a group who were offered access to lecture recordings.…”