Owston et. al. (2011) examined the effects lecture captures (i.e. recordings) on the grades of 439 undergraduate freshmen. The authors’ reported higher achieving students tend to view lecture captures less frequently and comprehensively than lower achieving students. Based on these findings, they suggest that lecture recordings “may benefit” low achievers more (Owston et al., 2011: 267).

However, this study is an exemplification of Hamilton and Friesen’s (2013) argument that research in new technologies unintentionally but commonly adopt an essentialist or instrumentalist approach, or both, in viewing new technologies. An essentialist approach assumes that new technologies have certain intrinsic qualities that are crucial to the pursuit of progress (Hamilton and Friesen, 2011). In contrast, an instrumental approach views technologies as neutral tools but possessing advantageous functions that justify their selection. Moreover, the problems with the theoretical grounding of this study illustrates Bayne’s (2015) proposition that the view of technology’s potential to enhance learning has transhumanist leanings. A transhumanist perspective in educational research is concerned with the attainment or refinement of humanistic values, in this case “perfectibility” via technological enhancement (Bostrom, 2005). As a result, these implicit approaches adopted by the Owston et al. (2011) study have affected (or even compromised) the authors’ perception of the pedagogical value of lecture captures, and in turn, their methodology and interpretation of the results.

First and foremost, Owston et al. (2011) imply that lecture recordings have benefits that are absent, or at least lacking, in live lectures. These benefits include increasing student satisfaction and enjoyment, aiding student understanding of complex information, reducing anxiety, allowing differentiated learning speeds and giving active control over learning to the students. In doing so, the authors have, in their view, identified what the essentialist approach would deem as intrinsic qualities of lecture captures. However, these positive attributes are not exclusive and it is possible for a well-planned and well-executed life lecture to also have them. More importantly, these supposed advantages should be some of the pedagogical objectives, among others, of any lesson regardless of whether they are live or recorded. Methodologically, these advantages can be utilised as dependent variables in a study that investigates the effectiveness of live lectures.

The transhumanist underpinnings of this study manifests itself in two prominent ways. Firstly, is evident in the language employed by the authors. They note that a technology is only “worth” the heavy investments involved if its academic value accrues for students (Owston et al, 2011: 262). Hence, the authors’ use of this economic metaphor is an example of the “performative” nature of the language in education (Bayne, 2015: 7). It highlights their view that a lesson is transactional, in which a student makes an investment of time spent reviewing the recordings for the return of a higher grade, and by extension, education is the commodification of a type of goods. Additionally, this metaphor also illustrates the instrumental approach of this study as it views lecture captures as a potential platform for these transactions in place of a live lecture. Secondly, the chosen dependent variable for all five research questions was a student’s grade in a post-test. While using a student’s summative grade to measure his or her progress and the effects of a new technology is reasonable, should it be the key, and in this case only, indicator of the “academic value”? Though the authors looked at the impact that lecture captures have on the participants’ engagement in discussions and other activities, this was merely backgrounded as they were concerned with the frequency of these participations and not their quality. It is possible that a student may participate more frequently (e.g. answering a simple question) but not contribute as much, or insightful, as another student.

As mentioned, it is likely that these essentialist, instrumentalist and transhumanist assumptions influenced the authors’ interpretation of the results. The authors repeatedly reached the conclusion that the higher achievers were less reliant on the lecture captures and obtained better scores because they had higher confidence levels and abilities. The authors’ categorisations of high and low achievers was simply based on the grades received. There was no pre-test to determine the students’ abilities. A possible alternative explanation for these patterns is that the lecture captures, and by extension a new technology, actually had a negative effect on the students’ learning and performance. However, this explanation was never on the cards as the authors had accepted that lecture captures possess positive intrinsic qualities without any consideration of their limitations.

References:

Bayne, S, 2014. What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, media and technology, 40(1), pp.5–20.

Bostrom, N (2005). A History of Transhumanist Thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology. 14.

Hamilton, E & Friesen, N, 2013. Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective / Éducation en ligne: Perspective des études en science et technologie. Canadian journal of learning and technology, 39(2), pp.Canadian journal of learning and technology, 2013–02-14, Vol.39 (2).

Owston, R, Lupshenyuk, D & Wideman, H, 2011. Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: Student perceptions and academic performance. The Internet and higher education, 14(4), pp.262–268.

Week 3: Critical Analysis of Owston, Lupshenyuk & Wideman’s (2011) Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: Student perceptions and academic performance / Illyas Lim Effandi / An introduction to digital environments for learning (2020/2021)[SEM1] by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0