Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 327–343 | Cite as

Comparing Lectures: Effects of the Technological Context of the Studio

  • Yvonne Fritze
  • Yngve Troye Nordkvelle


This presentation compares how lectures are being performed in different technological contexts: that of the studio, for taping of videotapes, or in front of a camera for the purpose of videoconferencing, or, for a live presentation. The different contexts will be described according to the communication theory of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, and contrasted with findings from contemporary research on lecturing and teacher–student interaction. The comparison between the videotaped lecture and the live lecture reveals important differences as to style of communication. The taped lectures are more stringent and content-oriented, while the live-lectures are time-consuming and more focused on establishing dialogues with students. Videoconference-lecturing contains features that place it between the live- and videotaped lecture. This paper concludes that videoconferencing is problematic with serious problems to handle for students and teachers alike.

distance education educational media comparative analysis systems theory information and communication technology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apel, H. J. (1999) Das Abenteuer auf dem Katheder. Zur Vorlesung als rhetorische Lehrform. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 45, 61–79.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong-Sassen, M., Lundstrom, M., and Lumpkin, R. (1998) Student's reactions to the introduction of videoconferencing for classroom instruction. The Information Society, 14, 153–164.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G. (eds.). (2000) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. A Practical Handbook. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
  4. Bligh, D. A. (2000) What's the Use of Lectures? Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  5. Bolter, J. D. and Grusin, R. (2001) Remediation. Understanding New Media. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Bronson, D. B. (1977) Toward a communication theory of teaching. Teachers College Record, 78, 447–456; (ID Number: 1211, Accessed: 3/14/0).Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, E. (1995) The new languages. In Communication in History. Technology, Culture, Society, D. Crowley, and P. Heyer (eds.). Longman, White Plains, NY, pp. 266–271.Google Scholar
  8. Entwistle, N. (1981) Styles of Learning and Teaching: An Integrated Outline of Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers, and Lecturers. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  9. Fillion, G., Limayem, M., and Bouchard, L. (1999) Videoconferencing in distance education: A study of student perceptions in the lecture context. Innovations in Education and Training International, 36, 302–319.Google Scholar
  10. Frymier, A. B. (1994) A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–144.Google Scholar
  11. Gunawardena, C. N. (1991) Current trends in the use of communications technologies for delivering distance education. International Journal of Instructional Media, 18, 201–214.Google Scholar
  12. Haecker, D. (1969) Kritische Betrachtungen zur Vorlesung. Didacta, 4, 261–271.Google Scholar
  13. Handal, G. (1973) Læremidlenes funksjon i undervisningen. In Universitetsundervisning, G. Handal, L.-G. Holmstrøm, and O. B. Thomsen (eds.). Studentlitteratur, Malmø, pp. 275–299.Google Scholar
  14. Handal, G. (1984) Hva er fagdidaktikk. Norsk pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 68, 59–63. Kelly, N. and Kelly, B. (1982). Backgrounds, education, and teaching styles of teaching award winning professors. Unpublished paper. ERIC No. Ed230080.Google Scholar
  15. Kneer, G. and Nassehi, A. (2000) Niklas Luhmann – Intrduktion til teorien om sociale systemer. Hans Reitzels forlag, København.Google Scholar
  16. Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Luhmann, N. (1999) Tillid: En Mekanisme Til Reduktion af Social Kompleksitet. Hans Reitzels forlag, København.Google Scholar
  18. Luhmann, N. (2000) Sociale Systemer – Grundrids Til en Almen Teori. Hans Reitzels forlag, København.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, M. M., Mottet, T. P., and Myers, S. A. (1999) The relationships between students' motives for communicating with their instructors and affective and cognitive learning. Research report. ERIC: ED 437 692.Google Scholar
  20. McKeachie, W. (1990) Research on college teaching: The historical background. Educational Psychology, 82, 189–200.Google Scholar
  21. McKeachie, W. (1994) Teaching Tips (9th edition). D. C. Heath and Co, Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Mottet, T. P. (2000) Interactive television instructor's perceptions of students' nonverbal responsiveness and their influence on distance teaching. Communication Education, 49, 146–164.Google Scholar
  23. Mottet, T. P. and Beebe, S. A. (2000) Emotional contagion in the classroom: An examination of how teacher and student emotions are related. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA (November 9–12, 2000). ERIC: ED 447 522.Google Scholar
  24. Mulkay, M. (1988) On Humor. Polity Press, Cambridge. Nussbaum, J. F. (1992) Effective teacher behaviours. Communication Education, 41, 167–180.Google Scholar
  25. O'Donnel, A. and Danserau, D. (1994) Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 116–125.Google Scholar
  26. Penner, J. (1984) Why Many College Teachers Cannot Lecture. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  27. Rasmussen, J. (1997) Socialisering og læring i det refleksivt moderne. Unge pædagogers serie B 62, København, Unge Pædagoger.Google Scholar
  28. Rose, D. (2000) Analysis of moving images. In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. A Practical Handbook, M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds.). Sage Publications, London, pp. 24–262.Google Scholar
  29. Saba, F. (2000) Research in distance education: A status report. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 1; (Retrieved 01/01/03).Google Scholar
  30. Saroyan, A. and Snell, L. S. (1997) Variations in lecturing styles. Higher Education, 33, 85–104.Google Scholar
  31. Schramm, W. (1962) What we know about learning from instructional television. In Educational Television: The Next Ten Years. The Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Vanderstraeten, R. (2000) Luhmann on socialization and education. Educational Theory, 50, 1–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social ScienceLillehammer University CollegeNorway

Personalised recommendations