Literature DB >> 19202495

Live lecture versus video-recorded lecture: are students voting with their feet?

Scott Cardall1, Edward Krupat, Michael Ulrich.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In light of educators' concerns that lecture attendance in medical school has declined, the authors sought to assess students' perceptions, evaluations, and motivations concerning live lectures compared with accelerated, video-recorded lectures viewed online.
METHOD: The authors performed a cross-sectional survey study of all first- and second-year students at Harvard Medical School. Respondents answered questions regarding their lecture attendance; use of class and personal time; use of accelerated, video-recorded lectures; and reasons for viewing video-recorded and live lectures. Other questions asked students to compare how well live and video-recorded lectures satisfied learning goals.
RESULTS: Of the 353 students who received questionnaires, 204 (58%) returned responses. Collectively, students indicated watching 57.2% of lectures live, 29.4% recorded, and 3.8% using both methods. All students have watched recorded lectures, and most (88.5%) have used video-accelerating technologies. When using accelerated, video-recorded lecture as opposed to attending lecture, students felt they were more likely to increase their speed of knowledge acquisition (79.3% of students), look up additional information (67.7%), stay focused (64.8%), and learn more (63.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Live attendance remains the predominant method for viewing lectures. However, students find accelerated, video-recorded lectures equally or more valuable. Although educators may be uncomfortable with the fundamental change in the learning process represented by video-recorded lecture use, students' responses indicate that their decisions to attend lectures or view recorded lectures are motivated primarily by a desire to satisfy their professional goals. A challenge remains for educators to incorporate technologies students find useful while creating an interactive learning culture.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19202495     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31818c6902

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  46 in total

1.  Using online lectures to make time for active learning.

Authors:  Amy J Prunuske; Janet Batzli; Evelyn Howell; Sarah Miller
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Exploring student preferences with a Q-sort: the development of an individualized renal physiology curriculum.

Authors:  John K Roberts; Charles W Hargett; Alisa Nagler; Emma Jakoi; Ruediger W Lehrich
Journal:  Adv Physiol Educ       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.288

3.  Student and Faculty Member Perspectives on Lecture Capture in Pharmacy Education.

Authors:  Monika K Lach; Bryan C McCarthy
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2015-10-25       Impact factor: 2.047

4.  Impact of Video Based Learning on the Perfomance of Post Graduate Students in Biostatistics: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Karthikeyan Murthykumar; Deepak Nallaswamy Veeraiyan; Preetham Prasad
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-12-01

Review 5.  [Surgical frontal lecture. Still important for teaching students?].

Authors:  A Wierlemann; J Baur; C T Germer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 0.955

6.  Student and faculty perceptions of lecture recording in a doctor of pharmacy curriculum.

Authors:  Lena M Maynor; Ashleigh Landis Barrickman; Mary K Stamatakis; David P Elliott
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 2.047

7.  What Traditional Lectures Can Learn From Podcasts.

Authors:  Holland Kaplan; Divya Verma; Zaven Sargsyan
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2020-06

8.  Student and faculty member perspectives on lecture capture in pharmacy education.

Authors:  Jon-Paul Marchand; Marion L Pearson; Simon P Albon
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 2.047

9.  Anesthesia machine checkout and room setup: a randomized, single-blind, comparison of two teaching modalities.

Authors:  Christina M Spofford; Emine O Bayman; Debra J Szeluga; Robert P From
Journal:  J Educ Perioper Med       Date:  2012-01-01

10.  Medical student attitudes toward kidney physiology and nephrology: a qualitative study.

Authors:  John K Roberts; Matthew A Sparks; Ruediger W Lehrich
Journal:  Ren Fail       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.606

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.