Does Lecture Format Matter? Exploring Student Preferences in Higher Education

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v8i1.406

Keywords:

lectures, learning preferences, digital pedagogy, participation, interactive learning

Abstract

This article offers an important contribution to understanding students’ perceptions of lectures based on different formats of lecture delivery. The growth in the use of blended, flipped, synchronous and asynchronous learning for lecture delivery raises questions as to whether students prefer these innovative modes of delivery over the traditional face-to-face lectures. Furthermore, the contemporary debates over recording lectures and whether this impacts on student attendance requires further exploration by comparing recorded face-to-face lectures with other methods of lecturing. This article draws on data that explored students’ preferences for lectures by comparing students’ experiences on three different types of lectures. The main findings demonstrate that there is no one preferred method of lectures, with student feedback reporting positive experiences with all three. However, the strengths and limitations of each mode of delivery are provided by the students which indicate that flexibility, interaction and choice enhance participation in lectures. The data indicates that student attendance is only slightly affected by lecture recordings and that other factors need to be considered if lecturers are concerned about attendance. This paper suggests that courses ought to offer a range of different lectures to meet the needs of varied populations of learners and that ensuring the delivery is student-focused will empower students and increase their participation.

Author Biographies

  • Suzanne Young, Dr, University of Leeds

    Dr Suzanne Young is a lecturer in Criminal Justice and programme leader for the BA Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Leeds

  • Helen Young, Dr, University of Lincoln

    Dr Helen Nichols is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Programme Leader at the University of Lincoln.

  • Ashley Cartwright, Dr, Leeds Beckett University

    Dr Ashley Cartwright is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Leeds Beckett University.

References

Almodaires, Abdullah A., Alayyar, Ghaida M., Almsaud, Tareq O. & Almutairi, Faisal M. (2019) ‘The Effectiveness of Flipped Learning: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Perceptions of Kuwaiti Pre-Service Teachers’, International Education Studies, 12(1), pp. 10–23.
Al-Nashash, H., & Gunn, C. (2013) Lecture capture in engineering classes: Bridging gaps and enhancing learning. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 69–78.
Attwell, G. & Hughes, J. (2010) Pedagogic Approaches to Using Technology for Learning: Literature Review. Lifelong Learning UK, Publication CC/01 2011/01.
Beetham, H., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2009) Thriving in the 21st century: Learning Literacies for the Digital Age (LLiDA project). Glasgow: the Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University.
Bryman, A. (2015) Social Research Methods (5th ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, N. S., Ko, H. C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005) ‘A Model for Synchronous Learning Using the Internet’ Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181-194.
Dommett, E.J., Gardner, B. & van Tilburg, W. (2019) ‘Staff and student views of lecture capture: a qualitative study’, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(23).
Edwards, M. & Clinton, M. (2018) A study exploring the impact of lecture capture availability and lecture capture usage on student attendance and attainment. Higher Education, 77(3), pp.403-421.
Fleming, N.D. (1995) ‘I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom’, in Zelmer, A., (Ed.) Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), HERDSA, Volume 18, pp. 308 – 313.
Gomis-Porqueras, P., Meinecke, J. & Rodrigues-Neto, J. (2011) ‘New Technologies in Higher Education: Lower Attendance and Worse Learning Outcomes?’. Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 18(01).
Gomm, R. (2009) Key Concepts in Social Research Methods, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Phillips, R., Preston, G., Woo, K., & Green, D. (2010) Web-based lecture technologies and learning and teaching: A study of change in four Australian universities. ALT-J, 18(3), 251–263.
Graham, A. (2005) ‘Blended learning systems: definitions, current trends and future directions’. In: Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (eds.) Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing, pp. 3-21.
Groen, J., F, Quigley, B. & Herry, Y. (2016) ‘Examining the Use of Lecture Capture Technology: Implications for Teaching and Learning’, The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 8.
Gulc, E. (2006) Using Blended Learning to Accommodate Different Learning Styles. Higher Education Academy. Accessed at https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/2917.pdf last access /8/09/2016
Hall, G. & Ivaldi, A. (2017) A qualitative approach to understanding the role of lecture capture in student learning experiences, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26:4, 383-394.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982) Manual of Learning Styles. London, P Honey.

Kozikoglu, I. (2019) ‘Analysis of the Studies Concerning Flipped Learning Model: A Comparative Meta-Synthesis Study’, International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), pp. 851–868.
Kinash, S., Knight, D. & McLean, M. (2015) ‘Does Digital Scholarship through Online Lectures Affect Student Learning?’ Educational Technology & Society, 18 (2), 129–139.
McGowan, A. & Hanna, P. (2015) How Video Lecture Capture Affects Student Engagement in a Higher Education Computer Programming Course: A Study of Attendance, Video Viewing Behaviours and Student Attitude. IIMC International Information Management Corporation.
Morris, N.P,, Swinnerton, B. & Coop, T. (2019) ‘Lecture recordings to support learning: A contested space between students and teachers’, Computers & Education, 140.
Nalliah, R.P. & Allareddy, V. (2014) ‘Students distracted by electronic devices perform at the same level as those who are focused on lectures’, PeerJ, 2:e572.
Newland, B. (2017). Lecture Capture in UK HE 2017: A HeLF Survey Report. [online]. Available at: https://cris.brighton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/483569/HeLFLectureCapture2017.pdf [Accessed 15 Jul. 2019].
Newton, G., Tucker, T., Dawson, J. & Currie, E. (2014) Use of lecture capture in higher education-lessons from the trenches. TechTrends, 58(2), 32–45.
Nyamupangedengu, E. & Khoza H.C. (2018) ‘Prompts used by biology lecturers in large lecture group settings to promote student interaction’, African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, (3), p. 386.
Proctor, C. (2003) ‘Blended Learning in Practice’ Conference Proceedings Education in a Changing Environment 17th-18th September 2003.
Rennie, F. (2003) ‘The Use of Flexible Learning Resources for Geographically Distributed Rural Students’, Distance Education, 24(1): 25–39.
Rudduck, J. (1978) ‘Interaction in small group work’, Studies in Higher Education, 3(1): 37-43.
Smith, D.H. (1996) ‘Developing a More Interactive Classroom: A Continuing Odyssey’, Teaching Sociology, 24(1): 64-75.
Stoerger, S. & Krieger, D. (2016) ‘Transforming a Large-Lecture Course into an Active, Engaging, and Collaborative Learning Environment’, Education for Information, 32(1), pp. 11–26.
Watt, S., Vajoczki, S., Voros, G., Vine, M., Fenton, N. & Tarkowski, J. (2014). Lecture capture: An effective tool for universal instructional design? The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(2), 1.
Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, M. Wagner, M.J. Poznanski, S. Schiller, J. & Santen, S. (2015) ‘Not Another Boring Lecture: Engaging Learners with Active Learning Techniques’, Journal of Emergency Medicine, p. 85.

Young, S. & Nichols, H. (2017) ‘A Reflexive Evaluation of Technology-Enhanced Learning’, Research in Learning Technology, Vol.25.

Downloads

Published

2020-09-01

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2020)

Section

Original Research

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.