HOW TO LIVE, A Lecture ##BEST##
Many face-to-face or staggered classes may need an alternative way for students to view in-person classroom lectures. There are several options for replacing in-classroom lectures, all of which are commonly referred to as "streaming". These include: lecture capture (one-way asynchronous streaming), one-way live streaming (synchronous), and two-way live streaming (synchronous).
HOW TO LIVE, A Lecture
Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare whether video lectures are as effective as live lectures to impart the complete contents of the clinical part of the medical exam. The study also examines whether students prefer live or video lectures and for what reason.
Design: In 2014, a preparatory course was held at the University of Göttingen to train medical students for the clinical part of the medical exams. Three-quarters of the participants received 41 four-hour lessons live, while the same lessons were shown on video to the remaining quarter. The assignment to the video group changed daily, so that all students saw both live and video lectures. To compare the effectiveness, it was evaluated for 205 students how video and live students answered the 301 multiple choice questions of the medical exam.
The speed in which the lecture proceeds can be determined by the student himself [3]. This is also true for self-paced learning [4]. Video lectures can be repeated as often as wanted, which is particularly useful for a deep understanding or for the preparation of exams [5].
Paegle et al. [6] compared the effect of live and video lectures on pathology. They found no significant differences in test questions (n = 59 4th-year medical students, 129 multiple-choice questions, average score and standard deviation live/video 87.56 (+4.80) vs 87.99 (+6.46)). Subjectively, however, the students thought they had learned more from the live lectures.
Most of the studies that compared live and video lectures in the medical field focused on a quite restricted part of the medical curriculum and use only a small number of test questions for the comparison of live and video lessons.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether video lectures for exam candidates for the second section of the medical examination have the same effect on the test results as live lectures. In addition, it is supposed to be investigated how the exam candidates evaluate the video compared to the live lectures.
In the spring of 2014, MEDI-LEARN was entrusted by the University of Göttingen to conduct a 41-day course to prepare students for the second part of the medical examination. Each day includes 4 h of lecture.
A total of 296 students were registered for the Göttingen MEDI-LEARN course. As the largest available lecture hall was only designed for 272 listeners, the lecture had to be shown in parallel in a second lecture theater.
For this purpose, MEDI-LEARN has recorded all teaching units on video before. The lecturers were asked to give the same lecture they usually give in the live course. In almost every case, the lecturers of the live course could be won for the video recording, exceptions were the two cardiology and the infectiology videos. In the background, the same PowerPoint presentation was displayed that later was shown on a monitor (SmartBoard) in the live course. The lecturers were shown from the head to the hip in the picture; next to the lecturer, the monitor with the presentation was visible.
At the introductory event, participants were given their timetable. Each lesson was offered simultaneously in two lecture halls: once live and once on video. Thus, the video could be shown under nearly equal conditions as the live lessons. The following features were the same for both events:
Since most lecturers held two or more classes, the students often saw a topic of the lecturer live, another topic of the same lecturer on video. On each course day, three of the four groups saw the live lecture, while one group attended the video lecture. On the first day of the course, group 1 saw the video, on the second day group 2 and so on.
As a result, each group saw a quarter of the lectures on video and three quarters live, with each group having seen a different course on video. In turn, this crossover setting was also used to evaluate every day of the lessons, both by video and live participants (Figure 1. Crossover setting).
Göttingen students were asked whether they had taken part in the course and which group from 1 to 4 they had been distributed to. Then, we have assigned the exam questions to each lecture day. Thus, we were able to determine for each student what question had been dealt with in a video or in a live lecture.
Since there were three groups in the live class and one group in the video class every day, each question was answered by three quarters of the students after a live lecture and of one quarter after a video lecture.
Paegle et al. [6] found only a difference of 0.43 percentage points in a test with a total of 129 MC questions when comparing video and live lectures. Schreiber et al. [7] used 35 questions and found only the slight difference of 2.4 percentage points. In the test by Spickard et al. [2], a maximum of 16 points could be reached. Here, the difference between live and video group was only 0.1 points. Solomon et al. [10] and Davis et al. [11] also found no significant difference.
The present study is based on more than 160 lectures on the almost complete contents of the clinical section of the medical examination. It was also confirmed with this range of material that live and video lectures have the same effect on the examination performance.
Kalwitzki et al. [12] came to a completely different conclusion: while only 12 of 107 study participants preferred the live lecture, 57 favoured the videos (38 both rated equally well). The different results may be explained by the very different lecture topic in the Tübingen study: This is not about the teaching of exam contents, but about communication patterns in the dental treatment of children and adolescents.
In this study, the question of preference for live or video course comes to the following result: 48% decide for the live, 27% for the video course and 25% are neutral on this question. This result is consistent with most previous studies. In this study, however, the course evaluation gives a different picture than it emerges from the preference: Here, the characteristics of the learning atmosphere, the ability to concentrate, the presence of other students and the acoustical intelligibility in video conferencing are assessed significantly better than live, but vice versa no feature of the live course is judged better than in the video course.
The authors performed a cross-sectional survey study of all first- and second-year students at Harvard Medical School. Respondents answered questions regarding their lecture attendance; use of class and personal time; use of accelerated, video-recorded lectures; and reasons for viewing video-recorded and live lectures. Other questions asked students to compare how well live and video-recorded lectures satisfied learning goals.
Of the 353 students who received questionnaires, 204 (58%) returned responses. Collectively, students indicated watching 57.2% of lectures live, 29.4% recorded, and 3.8% using both methods. All students have watched recorded lectures, and most (88.5%) have used video-accelerating technologies. When using accelerated, video-recorded lecture as opposed to attending lecture, students felt they were more likely to increase their speed of knowledge acquisition (79.3% of students), look up additional information (67.7%), stay focused (64.8%), and learn more (63.7%).
Information technology is finding an increasing role in the training of medical students. We compared information recall and student experience and preference after live lectures and video podcasts in undergraduate medical education.
No significant difference was found on multiple choice questioning immediately after the session. The subjects enjoyed the convenience of the video podcast and the ability to stop, review and repeat it, but found it less engaging as a teaching method. They expressed a clear preference for the live lecture format.
Podcasts are now being used within professions allied to medicine, notably dentistry [4] and nursing [5], and, increasingly in undergraduate medical education. Other uses of information technology include video recordings of lectures which can be watched in medical libraries or over the internet [6, 7] and various forms of computer based learning, such as medical school websites and educational software [8, 9].
There are several potential downsides to podcasts. These include reduced interaction between lecturer and student which may hamper learning, the inability of the student to ask questions and the inability of the lecturer to gauge understanding from non-verbal cues and indeed from questions. As a consequence, the student may be less engaged in the learning and motivation may suffer.
We chose a cross-over randomised controlled trial to compare video podcasts to live lectures. Students were split into two groups. The first group attended a live lecture on arthritis and then a video podcast on vasculitis, while the second group attended a live lecture on vasculitis and then a video podcast on arthritis. Both groups were then assessed with a questionnaire to assess qualitative and quantative outcomes [Additional File 1].
The students were randomised as they entered into two groups each containing 50 students (Figure 1). The students in Group 1 were directed to the computer suite to complete the video podcast on arthritis whilst those in Group 2 attended a live lecture on the same topic.
Then the students in Group 2 were sent to the computer suite to complete the video podcast on vasculitis whilst the students in Group 1 attended a live lecture on the same topic. Again the same slides and lecturer were used in both. The groups were then brought together at the end to complete a questionnaire.