Lecture Capture: Difference between revisions
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Affordances== | ==Affordances== | ||
Controlled via play, pause, and replay controls, recording playback allows students to set their own pace and a slightly accelerated speed may even be used to improve efficiency (Gorrisen, van Bruggen, & Jochems, 2012). This control allows students to relax in lectures and take notes later during lecture playback (Leadbeater, Shuttleworth, Couperthwaite, & Nightingale, 2013) and review elements that they may have missed in the live lecture (Nashash & Gunn, 2013). Lecture recordings are highly valued by students for review and revision (Larkin, 2010) and exam preparation (Taplin, Lee Hun Low, & Brown, 2011). Vajoczki et al. (2011) found that deep learners in particular were successful in using lecture recordings for test review purposes. Targeted usage has been noted to review difficult concepts (Leadbeater et al., 2013) and to resolve conflicts (Danielson et al., 2014). Odhabi and Nicks-McCaleb (2011) assert that lecture captures are particularly effective for technical work and screen capture recordings have been found to work well with simulations and lab activities (Stolzenberg & Pforte, 2007). | |||
Williams and Hancock (2012) argued that lecture capture was a particularly good match with contemporary, web-savvy students. Brooks, Erickson, Greer, and Gutwin (2011) contend that it meets the needs of the modern student and Larkin (2010) found lecture capture to promote mobile learning. With lecture recordings housed on web platforms, students report satisfaction with the flexible access (Nashash & Gunn, 2013) and derive greater motivation from being able to self-regulate their learning (Spaeth-Hilbert et al., 2013). Students report greater productivity, efficiency, time savings, and even improved sleep patterns when given access to lecture recordings (Danielson et al., 2014). Gorrisen et al. (2012) assert that the autonomy achieved over lecture consumption renders the very medium of the traditional lecture a learner-centered approach. Students often view the previous year’s recordings prior to the lecture (Odhabi & Nicks-McCaleb, 2011), further evidence of what Danielson et al. (2014) referred to as their good judgement in lecture capture usage. | |||
Taplin et al. (2011) found that educational organizations were able to break from the constraints of physical classroom size, which permits colleges and universities to reach a potentially far larger student population (Euzent et al., 2011). A wider array of students may be serviced effectively, as lecture recordings appeal to students with varying learning styles (Taplin et al., 2011) and are particularly useful for dyslexic students and those studying in a second language (Leadbeater et al., 2013). | |||
==Constraints== | ==Constraints== | ||
Revision as of 02:11, 7 October 2014
Lecture Capture
Michael Crocker, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Definitions and background
Lecture capture, also referred to as lecture recording, is a general term for a wide variety of techniques to maintain artifacts of classroom activity and distribute them to students (Nashash & Gunn, 2013). Stolzenberg and Pforte (2007) identified three potential streams of capture: audio of the lecture and class discussions; visual resources including slides and screen captures; and video of the actual classroom. Audio recordings form the simplest version of lecture capture, but these are often paired with the presentation slideshow (Larkin, 2010). Increasingly, screen capture software such as Camtasia Studio (McGrann, 2006) and Echo360 (Danielson, Preast, Bender, & Hassall, 2014) are used, which may also enable live webcasting of the lecture. Future links between lecture capture and wearable recording technology is possible (Odhabi & Nicks-McCaleb, 2011).
The raw recordings may or may not be edited for length and content before being made available to students (Germany, 2012). In order to allow students to access the recordings, the files or streaming links to the files may be placed on the institution’s Learning Management System (Vajockzi, Watt, Marquis, Liao, & Vine, 2011), a course website (Euzent, Martin, Moskal, & Moskal, 2011), or even an external video resource system such as YouTube or iTunesU (Spaeth-Hilbert, Seufert, & Wesner, 2013).
Affordances
Controlled via play, pause, and replay controls, recording playback allows students to set their own pace and a slightly accelerated speed may even be used to improve efficiency (Gorrisen, van Bruggen, & Jochems, 2012). This control allows students to relax in lectures and take notes later during lecture playback (Leadbeater, Shuttleworth, Couperthwaite, & Nightingale, 2013) and review elements that they may have missed in the live lecture (Nashash & Gunn, 2013). Lecture recordings are highly valued by students for review and revision (Larkin, 2010) and exam preparation (Taplin, Lee Hun Low, & Brown, 2011). Vajoczki et al. (2011) found that deep learners in particular were successful in using lecture recordings for test review purposes. Targeted usage has been noted to review difficult concepts (Leadbeater et al., 2013) and to resolve conflicts (Danielson et al., 2014). Odhabi and Nicks-McCaleb (2011) assert that lecture captures are particularly effective for technical work and screen capture recordings have been found to work well with simulations and lab activities (Stolzenberg & Pforte, 2007).
Williams and Hancock (2012) argued that lecture capture was a particularly good match with contemporary, web-savvy students. Brooks, Erickson, Greer, and Gutwin (2011) contend that it meets the needs of the modern student and Larkin (2010) found lecture capture to promote mobile learning. With lecture recordings housed on web platforms, students report satisfaction with the flexible access (Nashash & Gunn, 2013) and derive greater motivation from being able to self-regulate their learning (Spaeth-Hilbert et al., 2013). Students report greater productivity, efficiency, time savings, and even improved sleep patterns when given access to lecture recordings (Danielson et al., 2014). Gorrisen et al. (2012) assert that the autonomy achieved over lecture consumption renders the very medium of the traditional lecture a learner-centered approach. Students often view the previous year’s recordings prior to the lecture (Odhabi & Nicks-McCaleb, 2011), further evidence of what Danielson et al. (2014) referred to as their good judgement in lecture capture usage.
Taplin et al. (2011) found that educational organizations were able to break from the constraints of physical classroom size, which permits colleges and universities to reach a potentially far larger student population (Euzent et al., 2011). A wider array of students may be serviced effectively, as lecture recordings appeal to students with varying learning styles (Taplin et al., 2011) and are particularly useful for dyslexic students and those studying in a second language (Leadbeater et al., 2013).