NUS’s BL 2.0 initiative aims to give students the best learning experience by combining the best of online and f2f instruction. Hence, I found this article on Live vs Recorded lectures (contributed by Wanyun) most intriguing. It seeks to answer, if given a choice - What instructional style do students prefer?
“If students attended live lectures only or watched recorded lectures only, they achieved statistically significant higher scores than students who used a mixed approach in which they watched some lectures live and some recorded.”
Some of the key findings:
Students that went for only 1 mode yielded better performance than those who did a mixed approach (combination of both).
Lower-Performing Students Benefit from Attending Live Lectures.
Recorded lectures allowed students to view at x1.5 regular speeds. However, the study concluded that an increase in speed did not help, but actually hindered some of their performances.
This table nicely summarises main reasons for choosing Live vs Recorded lectures.
Ironically, the affordances of ed-tech advancements (recorded lectures) can actually have a negative effect on student learning. Especially those who struggle with time management. Students may procrastinate even more if they have the access to recorded content, and get a false sense of security knowing that they can refer to those notes at any time. However, when the student simply runs out of time, even the best resources remain unused.
While I appreciate the convenience and affordances that pre-recorded lectures provide, I also equally (if not more) value the interaction with my instructor. Attending a university is not just getting a certificate but also a social experience with fellow students, faculty and even industry. If I was a university student again, I would likely use a combination of both and recommend my own children to do so.
Benedict Chia
04 June 2022 (30 day progress check: this post would be my 2nd bi-weekly blog post)
Komentarze