Use of Lecture Recordings in Medical Education

Abstract

Medical schools provide many educational resources in their basic science curriculum, including slide-based lectures, handouts, study guides, reviews, textbooks, primary literature, and web-based links. We recently instituted a web-based lecture recording system, which synchronizes lecture audio with visual components, as opposed to previous audio-only recordings. This study sought to determine how this recording system was being used by students, whether its availability impacted class attendance, and whether this resource had a positive effect on student performance. First- and second-year medical students were surveyed regarding class attendance and their use of lecture recordings. In addition, students indicated their impression of how lecture recordings influenced exam performance for several of their basic science courses. Student perception was compared with actual exam results. Of 206 students who completed the survey, 80.1% (N = 165) utilized the lecture recording system. Of 91 second-year students using the resource, only 14.4% (N = 13) mentioned a decline in lecture attendance. Despite how it was used, first- and second-year medical students overwhelmingly responded in favor of these audiovisual-synchronized recordings. 90.3% of responding medical students using recordings felt this resource improved exam performance. While student perception was positive, our multidisciplinary data suggest otherwise. With the exception of the second-year Pharmacology course, lecture recordings did not have an impact, either in a positive or negative direction on exam performance across seven first- and second-year basic science courses. Lecture recordings can be viewed as another useful tool, in addition to traditional lectures, that allows for flexibility in study habits and self-directed learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Tomorrow’s Doctors. Recommendations on Undergraduate Medical Education. Volume 2. London, UK: General Medical Council; 2003. (http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/TomorrowsDoctors_2003.pdf)

  2. 2.

    Costa ML, van Rensburg L, Rushton N. Does teaching style matter? A randomized trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ. 2007;41:214–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    AAMC. CurrMIT (Curriculum Management & Information Tool): (https://www.aamc.org/services/52114/currmitt/).

  4. 4.

    AAMC. OSR REPS’ responses: 2007 survey on using multimedia technology to record lectures: (https://www.aamc.org/download/49144/data/multimedia.pdf).

  5. 5.

    Kamin C, Souza KH, Heestand D, Moses A, O’Sullivan P. Educational technology infrastructure and services in North American medical schools. Acad Med. 2006;81(7):632–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Callas PW, Bertsch TF, Caputo MP, Flynn BS, Doheny-Farina S, Ricci MA. Medical student evaluations of lectures attended in person or from rural sites via interactive videoconferencing. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16(1):46–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pilcher ES. Students’ evaluation of online course materials in fixed prosthodontics: a case study. Eur J Dent Educ. 2001;5(2):53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gupta B, White DA, Walmsley AD. The attitudes of undergraduate students and staff to the use of electronic learning. Br Dent J. 2004;196(8):487–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Elsasser GN, Hoie EB, Destache CJ, Monaghan MS. Availability of internet download lecture audio files on class attendance and examination performance. Int J of Instruc Tech Dist Learn. 2009;6(2):19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cardall S, Krupat E, Ulrich M. Live Lecture versus video-recorded lecture: Are students voting with their feet? Acad Med 2008;83:1174–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Smith MK. ‘Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and anadragogy’, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. 2002. (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm).

  12. 12.

    Clark RE. Yin and Yang Cognitive Motivational Processes Operating in Multimedia Learning Environments. 1999. In van Merrienböer, J. (Ed.) Cognition and Multimedia Design. Heerlen, Netherlands: Open University Press. (http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/clark_yin_yang.pdf).

  13. 13.

    Ophir E, Nass C, Wagner AD. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009;106(37):15521–15522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Grabe M, Christopherson K. Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of providing lecture notes: The role of internet technology as both a delivery system and research tool. Internet and Higher Education. 2005;8:291–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Brown, B. Pedagogical Uses of Lecture Recording (www.educause.edu/Resources/PedagogicalUsesofLectureRecord/156704).

  16. 16.

    Billings-Gagliardi S, Mazor KM. Student decisions about lecture attendance: do electronic course materials matter? Acad Med. 2007; 82(10 Suppl): S73–S76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mattick K, Crocker G, Bligh J. Medical student attendance at non-compulsory lectures. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(2):201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David S. Franklin PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Franklin, D.S., Gibson, J.W., Samuel, J.C. et al. Use of Lecture Recordings in Medical Education. Med.Sci.Educ. 21, 21–28 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03341590

Download citation

Keywords

  • Lecture recordings
  • streaming media