中国A片

Banning lecture capture would not free students from loneliness

We should not deprive numerous hard-pressed students of valuable flexibility merely to ensure that the ‘undeserving’ don’t skip classes, say five experts

七月 22, 2024
Lecture theatre depicted as film strip
Source: Getty Images/iStock montage

Does lecture capture discourage in-person attendance, and is that a good enough reason to restrict or ban it? That is what a recent article published in Times 中国A片 argued. The authors, ?and , contend that lecture capture is contributing to the sparsely populated lectures and increasing loneliness that characterise the post-pandemic student experience.

As researchers who have devoted our careers to studying lecture capture and the cognitive science of learning, however, we disagree with their fundamental premise.

First, lecture capture is not a post-pandemic phenomenon. While it is surprisingly difficult to obtain precise estimates of how many lectures are recorded, the evidence we have suggests that while the pandemic has increased the number of recordings (89 per cent of students surveyed for the report had access to live streams, recordings or prerecorded content), they were already prevalent pre-2020. A 2017 noted that 86 per cent of surveyed universities had lecture capture capability, with 63 per cent planning lecture capture in 75 to 100 per cent of their lecture theatres.

Given the prevalence of pre-pandemic lecture capture, there is a on the relationship between recordings and attendance. However, while report a link, more find . This is probably because the drivers of attendance are much more complex than whether a recording is provided, also including factors such as , and . This complexity has only grown since the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis.

While Kearney and Crolley note that the need to work may be a factor in current engagement issues, they wildly understate it. The most recent found that 55 per cent of students were in paid employment: the first time since the survey began that the figure is above 50 per cent. Not only that, the average weekly hours worked by those in employment now sits at a considerable 13.5.

Last year, one of us attended a session on student time poverty in which we were tasked to produce a full weekly student schedule that included studying, extracurricular activities and some form of social or family life. If you’ve never done this, go and do it now, and try adding in 13.5 hours of employment. And then remember that that’s the average and that when we strip away flexibility we compound .

Will there be a handful of students who don’t attend lectures for no other reason than that there’s a recording? Almost certainly. But that’s not the question we should be asking. Rather, the question we should demand of educators is, “Who are you willing to punish to ensure that ‘undeserving’ students don’t skip your class?”

Kearney and Crolley suggest that a possible solution may be to provide recordings only during revision time, or only to those with individual needs. But there is a large and robust literature on the importance of – releasing recordings at the end of term encourages bingeing and removes the possibility that the student who was off sick for a week can get back on track. And releasing recordings only according to demonstrable individual need ignores the fact that and rejects , not an accommodation.

In addition, Kearney and Crolley extol the virtues of in-person lecture attendance, permitting collaborative problem-solving, the back-and-forth of ideas and peer discussion. We are also ?of the lecture format yet even we struggle to recognise this educational utopia. It is of course possible to make , but what is described by Kearney and Crolley is a tutorial or seminar. And here’s the kicker: attendance at those types of sessions, which typically aren’t and shouldn’t be recorded, is also down. As is attendance at . As is attendance in the . Such are the consequences of a pandemic that wrought pervasive psychosocial damage, and changed social norms.

We don’t deny that there are serious issues that need addressing. Student engagement, disruptive behaviour, a lack of resilience and the inability to self-regulate: all these are symptoms of educational long Covid that we will be dealing with for years. But it is our job as educators to help give our students back what they have lost. If they are not using lecture recordings in an optimal way, our reaction should be , not take the recordings away.

, and this is not just true of lecture capture. If left to their own devices, , such as rereading, highlighting, copying notes and cramming. They need to be taught , how to manage their time and , and even when there is a recording.?

If this sounds like a lot of work, it is. But it’s only by recognising the distinction and dissociation between lecture capture, engagement and study skills that we will move forward in a way that takes all our students with us. To blame lecture recordings for poor study habits and student loneliness is to reach for a simple solution to complex issues. It is a denial of evidence, reality and responsibility.

and are senior lecturers in the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Glasgow. is professor of digital innovation in learning and teaching in the School of Biosciences at the University of Sheffield. is senior lecturer in the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and is undergraduate talent lead and programme director at the Usher Institute, both at the University of Edinburgh.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (4)

This response article begins with a fundamental misrepresentation of the original article. Treasa Kearney and Liz Crolley did NOT say we should ''restrict or ban" lecture recording. They actually wrote: 'The benefits of flexibility and accessibility should not be dismissed, and we are all for the technological enhancement of learning. However, more careful reflection is urgently required about how lecture recordings are used'. As such it represents a more balanced and reasoned reflection than this retort.
Having read this and the previous article that it responds to, I think that there's a further missing piece to the jigsaw. As head of a first year medicine (MBChB) programme since before COVID, I have encountered significant, increasing and apparently intractable problems with physical attendance at large group lectures (sometimes only half of a cohort of 300 attending). This has undoubtedly in my opinion contributed to a loss of sense of ‘belonging’ amongst students. We have always said, and continue to say to students, that lecture recordings were NEVER intended to be a primary teaching resource. I've always seen them as, a student has been physically present, didn't 'get' five or ten minutes of the lecture and later fast-forwards to that part of the recording to catch up (or was physically present, but due to a specific learning disability [SpLD], benefits from revisiting the entire lecture recording). The reality of lecture recordings (in my experience) is i) the first few minutes typically comprises the audience chatting before the lecturer quietens everyone down and begins; ii) the audio quality is often very poor, with lecturers wandering away from the swan-neck lectern microphone without a radio mike; iii) lecturers using laser pointers or drawing on a whiteboard which don’t show up on the recording (the only visuals are the projector feed from the Powerpoint slides), iv) any questions from the audience are inaudible; v) the central-university administered recordings automatically cuts off at 50mins past the hour (all our lectures run 9-9.50, 10-10.50 etc.), so the end of the lecture is often unceremoniously cut-off and lost; iv) the recording sometimes just doesn’t work due to IT issues and therefore students who didn’t attend can only access the Powerpoint slides with no audio recording – these slides are often pictures and aide memoires for the lecturer and make little sense on their own. We’re hamstrung by a mantra that attendance is mandatory and that courses are fundamentally face-to-face (“we’re not the Open University”). Central University obligates a minimum of 80% attendance and that students shouldn’t work more than 16 hrs per week, but there are no enforceable consequences (unless a student massively disengages). In medicine this is compounded by the General Medical Council (GMC) statement that a medical degree should constitute a minimum of 5500 hours of contact time (which we should be able to produce evidence of at the level of an individual student – our degree programme undoubtedly ‘offers’ more than 5,500 hours of contact time). Our fundamental record of engagement is physical attendance at scheduled teaching. My point (sorry for the long intro) is that students who use lecture recordings as a primary teaching resource, which many of them undoubtedly are, are getting a really bad deal and deserve much better in return for their fees. We could, without too many extra resources, time and energy record lectures to a much higher standard. This requires though an acknowledgment (of failure to mandate physical attendance?) that some lecture recordings are suitable to be used as a primary teaching resource. It sometimes seems that the poor quality of lecture recordings is used as a tacit stick with which to encourage students to attend in person.
Hi TFD Farrow - a lot of what you observe resonates with my research! We have seen, in vet students at least (https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2020-0067), that using lecture recordings as a revision aid to help students find the 'jumping off' points for further research seems to be a successful strategy, with students skipping backwards and forward to help support their note making. It is SO important that we provide students with guidance as to HOW to use recordings when we provide them, especially for those coming through with disrupted education due to Covid, so they best understand how they can make use of this resource. In our QAA Scotland Collaborative Cluster we produced some resources which are available on their website for free use. Emily Nordmann has made some brilliant Intro-to-Learning lectures available on her blog which I for one have shamelessly stolen for our students. We can't expect students to intuit how we think a lecture should be, we need to induct them into that format, and acknowledge the recording resource in that induction. We see really similar time issues in the vet curriculum as you do in medicine, and I personally think that we will need to revise our opinions that learning is either face-to-face or online, and never the twain shall meet, as it simply does not fit with modern workplaces anymore. Most CPD for example is now delivered in some hybrid format. What hybrid/hyflex/blended learning is in this new world is not fully understood, in my opinion, and I would hope that we in university teaching can start to address this, and support students to learn in the modern world! :)
One trick is to suggest to students how best to use lecture recordings. My suggestion is that students put their pens away and listen in class, then use the recording to make their notes. If they are concentrating on the lecture not on scribblling down as much as they can, they can actually take part, contribute ideas, answer questions, tale part in discussions. I'd much rather look at a sea of faces than a forest of tops of heads as they look at their notebooks! They don't need to worry about capturing every word because the recording does that for them.
ADVERTISEMENT